Tuesday, April 2, 2019

William Tyrell Missing Emergency Call


Analysis by Lucia Delaney

I. The Transcript
II. The Transcript with Analysis

I. The Transcript

Operator: Police emergency, this is Simone.

Foster Mother: Yeah hi my son is missing, he's three and a half.
Operator: (inaudible)

Foster Mother: Umm sorry...
Operator: Your address?
Foster Mother: Benaroon Drive, Kendall.
Op: OK Benaroon drive in Kendall?
Foster Mother: Yes.

OP: Alright I'm just going to bring that up on my map I won't be a moment.

Foster Mother: Thank you.

Operator: How long has he been missing?

Foster Mother: I th... well, I think, well, we've been looking him for him now for about fifteen or twenty minutes but...

Operator: OK.

Foster Mother: Ah, I thought it could be five, it could be longer 'cause he was just playing around here we heard him and then we heard nothing

Operator: OK, so I've got the nearest cross street being Ellendale crescent, is that right?

Foster Mother: Sorry, what is it?

Operator: Ellendale Crescent?

Foster Mother: I don't know my, this is my Mum's house... ah hang on, there's another lady out helping us look for him I'll see if I can find her but it's Benaroon B-E-N-A-R-double O-N.

Operator: Yeah I can see I can see where you are I just wanted yeah so, it was it's Benarron drive in Kendal and I've got, I've got your nearest cross street as being Ellendale Crsecent

Foster Mother: It could be I don't know. 

Operator: OK. So he's been missing since about 10:30?

Foster Mother: Yeah I'd say so.

Operator: OK can you describe him to me how tall, obviously not very tall but approximately...

Foster Mother: No, he'd be about two and a half feet. He's wearing a Spider-man outfit...um.

Operator: What colour hair has he got?

Foster Mother: He's got um dark sandy coloured hair, it's short and he's got really big ah brownie/grey coloured eyes

Operator: OK. Would he have had any shoes on do you know? Any other distinguishing features?

Foster Mother: Um, um, um he has oh he's got a freckle on the top of his head when you part the hair on the left hand side (Operator: yep) you'll see a freckle on the top of his head. 

Operator: OK, alright. Do you know where he might have gone?

Foster Mother: Um, we're a li-, we actually live, well mother's property's near a State forest  (Operator: OK) and they're on huge blocks. We've walked up and down Benaroon Drive and we can't find him. 

Operator: OK, what's his name?

Foster Mother: William.

Operator: So what's William's surname?

Foster Mother: Ah Tyrrell T-Y-double R-E-double L.

Operator: OK has he been known to sort of go anywhere before...

Foster Mother: No, this is the first time, (Operator: The first time he's wandered off) completely out of character

Operator: There wasn't anyone um suspicious in the area? Any vehicles?

Foster Mother: No, no, no, no well not that I no not that I'm aware of. We were just, I was out there talking with my mum and my other daughter so...

Does the Foster Mother know characters she does not trust?

Operator: OK

Foster Mother: And we heard him roaring around the garden and, then I thought oh, I haven't heard him I better go check on him and I can't find him.

Operator: OK, alright, we'll send police to see you at Benaroon Drive in Kendall ( Foster Mother: inaudible) we'll also get um, the message broadcasted to all the cars to keep a look out for him as well OK? 

Foster Mother: Yeah sure, thanks so much thanks bye bye.
Operator: Bye.

II. Statement With Analysis

Operator: Police emergency, this is Simone.

Foster Mother: Yeah hi my son is missing, he's three and a half. 

The foster mother begins her emergency call with a greeting “Yeah hi.” This level of politeness is unexpected in an emergency call which is often described as a form of “excited utterance.” 

a. "yeah" is a form of "yes" or agreement. We note that some will evidence a form of ingratiation; that is, to be seen on the side of law enforcement.

 b. "hi" is a polite greeting-- it is not expected in the context of a missing child of a young age.

c. "yeah, hi"--- consider taken together is a pause. A pause indicates a need to think of what to say. This, too, in context, is not expected and can sometimes indicate scripted language where one is attempting to only say what has been pre-thought.


She also gives the boy an incomplete social introduction, mentioning his age, but not his name as she may be in a hurry to get the information out. That she uses the pronoun "my" shows that she is not attempting to distance herself from him.




Operator: (inaudible)

Foster Mother: Umm sorry...

We flag the word "sorry" for any cause. Some will use it out of politeness, while others may use it due to a form of guilt. We do not expect to hear it in an emergency call; no different than the expected impolite hastening to facilitate the flow of information to the police.

One may be "sorry" due to criminal guilt, but also one may be "sorry" due to failure to protect.

Some children do go missing where the parent or caretaker who is making the emergency call indicate guilt due to neglect or failure to protect, rather than criminal guilt.

For example, if a mother or caretaker was watching television rather than watching the child, and the child is abducted, the mother may show signals of guilt that is not due to the abduction.

In one case, a man was deceptive about his young toddler who wandered off but was murdered by a pedophile on the block.

He was deceptive due to substance abuse, passed out on the couch, while the child was able to let herself out of the house.


Operator: Your address?

Foster Mother: Benaroon Drive, Kendall.
Op: OK Benaroon drive in Kendall?
Foster Mother: Yes.

OP: Alright I'm just going to bring that up on my map I won't be a moment.

Foster Mother: Thank you.

Operator: How long has he been missing?

Foster Mother: I th... well, I think, well, we've been looking him for him now for about fifteen or twenty minutes but...

Here we see self censoring.

The child is not her biological child, which sets the context of the call for us, along with the child's age, level of self protection he is capable of, any illness or disabilities (special needs) and so on.

At the date reported missing, he was 3 years, 3 months old; incapable of survival, protection or caring for self.


She began with "I", but then needed a pause ("well") and then a weak commitment, ("I think") and then she moved to the plural ("we've") after another pause ("well").

This caller does not want to be psychologically "alone" with the information.

Operator: OK.

The operator should not interrupt, ask compound questions, nor finish the subject's sentences.

Foster Mother: Ah, I thought it could be five, it could be longer 'cause he was just playing around here we heard him and then we heard nothing

Operator: OK, so I've got the nearest cross street being Ellendale crescent, is that right?

Foster Mother: Sorry, what is it?

Operator: Ellendale Crescent?

Foster Mother: I don't know my, this is my Mum's house... ah hang on, there's another lady out helping us look for him I'll see if I can find her but it's Benaroon B-E-N-A-R-double O-N.

Operator: Yeah I can see I can see where you are I just wanted yeah so, it was it's Benarron drive in Kendal and I've got, I've got your nearest cross street as being Ellendale Crsecent

Foster Mother: It could be I don't know. 

Operator: OK. So he's been missing since about 10:30?

Foster Mother: Yeah I'd say so.

Operator: OK can you describe him to me how tall, obviously not very tall but approximately...

Foster Mother: No, he'd be about two and a half feet. He's wearing a Spider-man outfit...um.

Operator: What colour hair has he got?

Foster Mother: He's got um dark sandy coloured hair, it's short and he's got really big ah brownie/grey coloured eyes

Operator: OK. Would he have had any shoes on do you know? Any other distinguishing features?

Foster Mother: Um, um, um he has oh he's got a freckle on the top of his head when you part the hair on the left hand side (Operator: yep) you'll see a freckle on the top of his head. 

Operator: OK, alright. Do you know where he might have gone?

Foster Mother: Um, we're a li-, we actually live, well mother's property's near a State forest  (Operator: OK) and they're on huge blocks. We've walked up and down Benaroon Drive and we can't find him. 

Operator: OK, what's his name?

Foster Mother: William.

Operator: So what's William's surname?

Foster Mother: Ah Tyrrell T-Y-double R-E-double L.

Operator: OK has he been known to sort of go anywhere before...

Foster Mother: No, this is the first time, (Operator: The first time he's wandered off) completely out of character

Operator: There wasn't anyone um suspicious in the area? Any vehicles?

Foster Mother: No, no, no, no well not that I no not that I'm aware of. We were just, I was out there talking with my mum and my other daughter so...


The question produced a halting or repetition on the word "no", which increases the import of the question.

This sensitivity could be due to knowingly associating with suspicious persons.

We also have the concern regarding Neglect.


Operator: OK

Foster Mother: And we heard him roaring around the garden and, then I thought oh, I haven't heard him I better go check on him and I can't find him.




Not she saw him or she heard him, but "we" and "we" only "heard" him; which tells us that this was not eyes on supervision of a young child.

It is similar to a Hina Clause where the subject feels the need to explain why she went out to check on him. This is very sensitive information.

Operator: OK, alright, we'll send police to see you at Benaroon Drive in Kendall ( Foster Mother: inaudible) we'll also get um, the message broadcasted to all the cars to keep a look out for him as well OK? 

Foster Mother: Yeah sure, thanks so much thanks bye bye.
Operator: Bye

Notes:


Next she says “ummm sorry” and later says “Sorry” a second time during this relatively short  call. The word sorry tends to enter the language either of the polite, or the guilty during an emergency call.  This is noted.


Then the mother says “Thank you” to the operator, who is performing his job.  Together with her unexpected greeting at the outset of the call, we begin to question whether this mother has a need to ingratiate herself with authorities.


 To the question of how long he has been missing, she responds with halting, broken sentences, switching pronouns (I, I, We), and a lack of conviction. The question of the time he went missing is very sensitive to her. She reports how long “we’ve” been searching for him, rather than how long he has been missing.  She does not wish to be alone in the boy going missing. She does return to his question with “I thought it could be five, it could be longer.” Without being asked , she reports the reason why, “cause he was just playing around here.” She is preempting the question of why she isn’t sure how long her son has been missing, adding to the sensitivity of timing.


She returns to using the pronoun “we”, which is often an attempt to share guilt or responsibility.  “We heard him and then we heard nothing.” And then is a skipping over of time, which can indicate missing information.  She expands on it later in the call “we heard him roaring around the garden and then, I thought oh I haven’t heard him”. Her choice of the word roaring causes me to wonder if he was too loud for her.  Could it be a subtle form of disparaging her missing son? The operator, still trying to elicit a timeline from her, offers “So he’s been missing since about 10:30?” ,and the mother takes him up on it, “yeah I’d say so”.  Is she thinking of someone else who might say differently?


This mother still has not called her foster son by his name, nor has she come out and asked for help in finding him. Nor has she indicated any concern for him. The operator, still attempting to pull facts from her, has to ask for his name.  When asked to describe him, the mother goes into some detail about his hair and his eyes. Asked for any other distinguishing features she also describes something on his head “he’s got a freckle on the top of his head when you part the hair (why not his hair? Is this distancing language?) on the left hand side you’ll see a freckle on the top of his head.” And she repeats it, making that important to her.  She chooses these details to report all relating to his head. This is what is on her mind. Did something happen to his head that is related to his disappearance?    Was he making noise, but something happened to stop him from making noise?


When asked if she knows where he may have gone, she starts to report (again in halting, broken sentences) where they live instead. By not answering, she shows sensitivity to that question as well.  She then describes her mother’s property and reports “We’ve walked up and down Benaroon Drive and we can’t find him.” Then, only in response to a direct question, does she finally state her son’s name.  


When asked if there was anyone suspicious or vehicles in the area she responds “No, no, no, no” repeating it four times. But then backpedals into “well not that I no not that I’m aware of.  We were just, I was” .  This kind of confusion of pronouns is not natural. Pronouns are instinctive and we do not make mistakes with them.  This question was also very sensitive to her.


Then she reports, without being asked, the reason why she went to check on William in the garden.  “And then (again, there is possibly missing information here) I thought oh I haven’t heard him, I better go check on him and I can’t find him.”


To the operator’s promise to send police and broadcast his description she responds “Yeah sure. Thanks so much. Thanks. Bye bye.” Again being very polite and ending with a social “bye bye” rather than just ending the call.  


Conclusion:


The foster mother has a need to ingratiate herself with the operator, but only gives out information piece by piece, in response to questions. She never asked for help for William.  She did not work with the operator to facilitate the flow of information for the victim's benefit.


The foster mother’s linguistic disposition towards William is neutral at best, making it negative in the context of her three year old son going missing.


She is withholding information about his disappearance in her emergency call. 

 She indicates guilty knowledge about what happened. 

It could be being deceptive due to Neglect, regarding the length of time she left William outside unsupervised; perhaps fearing she will be blamed for that. 

She may be withholding something more incriminating, including known associations.


262 comments:

1 – 200 of 262   Newer›   Newest»
General P. Malaise said...

Great post Lucia.

it is unexpected to describe the freckle that you would have to part the hair to see.

expected would be to describe his clothing and appearance for the police and or public to be on the lookout for.

LuciaD said...

Thanks General! I thought if police saw a group of kids playing. Would they walk over and ask to part his hair? Sounded more like her IDing his dead body, than describing a living boy.

Michael said...

The foster mother gives away that William is deceased.

She says “He WOULD be about two and a half feet tall.”

He WOULD be two and a half feet tall IF he was still alive, in one piece & standing.

The whole “there is a state park nearby”...THIS IS A DEORR KUNTZ COPYCAT case.

I get the impression William’s body has been thrown down a well shaft.

They “heard” him. Then heard nothing.

Mike Dammann said...

"he would be" indicates that she has absolutely no idea about what happened, how he is doing. If he had only been missing for a few minutes, it wouldn't be possible to have driven the body to the park and thrown it down a well shaft

Michael said...

Freckle on top of head = mother’s perspective in her mind is “looking down” at William.
Looking down a well shaft?

William was “roarimg”. Screaming (to get out of well!
He “would” have a height if he were standing back on solid ground instead of in a well?

Michael said...

Mike Damman,

How do you kmow she is tellimg the truth about how long he’s been missing!

frommindtomatter said...

Operator: How long has he been missing?

Foster Mother: I th... well, I think, well, we've been looking him for him now for about fifteen or twenty minutes but...

We can deduce that “I th... well, I think, well” are almost repeated words which indicate sensitivity to the question. The word think denotes uncertainty. Taking the sentence in its entirety and context I see what she is telling us is that she doesn’t know how long he has been missing, but she does know how long they have been searching. This is why the repeated words and sensitivity are there as she cannot truthfully answer that question. I note that she does not lie by telling us a false time but instead avoids answering and moves forward with what information she can supply.

“We`ve been looking” could represent the need to share the responsibility with others but it could also be a genuine and natural selection of the pronoun. If she has searched with others then it would be expected.

Operator: OK.

Foster Mother: Ah, I thought it could be five, it could be longer 'cause he was just playing around here we heard him and then we heard nothing

She has now decided on what she couldn’t tell us initially, the time he was initially missing for prior to searching. She tells us what she thought, not what she thinks, and offers five minutes, but immediately shows uncertainty by adding “it could be longer”. Now we see her bring in others to take the focus of her with “we heard him and then we heard nothing”, we expect the use of the pronoun “I”.

Operator: There wasn't anyone um suspicious in the area? Any vehicles?

Foster Mother: No, no, no, no well not that I no not that I'm aware of. We were just, I was out there talking with my mum and my other daughter so...

The repeated “no” does show sensitivity to the question. It also can represent a firm answer like someone is saying “you’re way off track” or “you’re getting the wrong idea”. It seems as though the suggestion by the operator has caused the caller to think about that possibility as she uses the word “well” as a pause to think about it.

“We were just” – followed by the change to “I was” suggests self-censoring and the use of the word “”Just” here could represent a minimisation of actions. We don’t get to find out those actions as she self-censors.

What interests me in the sentence is she says –

“I was out there talking with my mum and my [other] daughter”

She feels a need to differentiate between her daughters. The sentence would be fine said as “with my mum and daughter”, the listener would not be confused with that, and we would be none the wiser. If she is with her “other daughter” then I would like to know where the daughter she is not with is.

Operator: OK, alright. Do you know where he might have gone?

Foster Mother: Um, we're a li-, we actually live, well mother's property's near a State forest (Operator: OK) and they're on huge blocks. We've walked up and down Benaroon Drive and we can't find him.

It’s hard to make head or tail of the beginning (I don’t know accuracy of transcript). Regardless we must note that the operators question is not answered with a direct yes or no. As we know liars avoid direct lies. If she answers yes she will need to supply details of possible location, but if she answers no she will have to tell a direct lie. But only if she has something to hide.

Adrian.

Michael said...

Go into her mind and picture what she is “seeing”.

She is looking down at him. He is standing up, she can see his part. It is not on the left side. He is beneath ground. His height “would be” 2 1/2 feet were he standing above ground.

What else?

She hears him “roaring” like an animal that lives in a den beneath ground.

Michael said...

Well shaft. State park. She can see the top of his head. She heard him roaring (to get out.

HS said...

Thank you Lucia. Bless you and the work you do.

Alexie said...

William was pretending to be a lion. This is the reason he was roaring around the garden. There are no well shafts in that forest here in Australia.

Anonymous said...

Michael it has been confirmed that she was at her mother's house immediately before and during the time she made the call, not in the bush and not by a well.

Alexie said...

William was pretending to be a lion that is why he was roaring around the garden. There are no well shafts in that forest here in Australia. The foster mum said to the media that William was pretending to be a lion. He would roar and they would answer him with a roar. The mum and grandmother went inside to make a cup of tea. When they didn't hear a roar, they went outside to look. The foster mum roared a few times and William didn't answer.
Also it was kept quiet by police etc that William and his sister were in foster care. The public were only a couple of years ago.

Alexie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alexie said...

William was pretending to be a lion that is why he was roaring around the garden. There are no well shafts in that forest here in Australia. The foster mum said to the media that William was pretending to be a lion. He would roar and they would answer him with a roar. The mum and grandmother went inside to make a cup of tea. When they didn't hear a roar, they went outside to look. The foster mum roared a few times and William didn't answer.
Also it was kept quiet by police etc that William and his sister were in foster care. The public were only a couple of years ago.

HS said...

The foster mother says "We heard him and then we heard nothing." It is physically impossible to "hear nothing". This terminology reminds me of another thing Peter warns us to watch for - telling us what she did not do i.e. hear.

HS said...

The foster mother says "We heard him and then we heard nothing." It is physically impossible to "hear nothing". This terminology reminds me of another thing Peter warns us to watch for - telling us what she did not do i.e. hear.

Leigh said...

I am wondering if there are significant enough differences between American English and British/Australian English? Roaring, as a descriptor, is not typically used in the States unless referring to a large mass of moving water, lions/big cats, large groups of people, or storms/wind. It is an unusual word to use when describing the noise one child makes while playing outside.

Foster Mother: No, no, no, no well not that I no not that I'm aware of. We were just, I was out there talking with my mum and my other daughter so...

The foster mother offers no social introductions during her phone call. What is confusing, is her reference to “my other daughter”. For there to be an “other daughter”, there has to be a primary/first daughter. She has not mentioned two daughters specifically in her phone call, either by mentioning both names or by using plurals. There may be a reason she is not directly mentioning this.

Anonymous said...

Did William die while playing unsupervised?
That's not something a foster parent wants on their record.

The foster mother mentions "my other daughter" although it has been reported that he was playing with a sister in the yard that day. How many daughters were at the home that day? Which one was playing "hide and seek" "daddy tiger" with William? How old was the playmate?

He screamed/roared once and then fell silent. Did he fall off the balcony?
Did the playmate cause the death and the mother is withholding knowledge?
Was William's body hidden in the state park?

Anonymous said...

This brings to mind the important lesson of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf".

A friend said her father taught her at a very young age that if she ever screamed, he would run to her immediately to see if she was OK.

He also told her that if she ever screamed and there was not an emergency, she would be in trouble.

Michael said...

You have no way of knowing if there are NO well shafts in an entire state park or in that part of Australia.

It makes no sense that they would be playing a roaring game with him if they are not even looking at him.

Please bear in mind she is looking at the TOP of William's head in her mind. Wherever he is, he is standing upright or she pictures he is standing upright and he is beneath ground...that is why she states that "he WOULD be 2 and 1/2 feet. One in some sense loses their "height" if they are standing beneath ground like in a well shaft.

If his hair WAS parted on the left, you would see a freckle on the top of his head.

Why would this "hidden" detail stand out to her? A freckle covered by hair? Seen if parted on the left? I will tell you why this detail is vivid in her mind. Because at the time of William's disappearance it was visible. His head had been shaved. Did he have lice? Going through hair with comb? Seeing the freckle. Then shaving it off? She feels William is contaminated?

Michael said...

Head injury? Bleeding?? Hit by ax? Hair missing??

Michael said...

Why was mother going through William's hair with a comb?

Why is the freckle vivid in her mind since it is normally hidden by his hair?

Shaved head?

He is wearing a "spiderman "outfit"?

Pajamas? One-piece?

Disappeared during the night?
Head shaved?
Mother looking down at top of his head?

What happened to William?

Roaring
State park

Shaved head
State park
Roaring
You would see it
Freckle
If hair parted on the left
Spiderman Outfit

Has she "disguised" William and sold him?

Hair is different
Outfit (dressed up/dressed differently)
"Other daughter"---Is William dressed/disguised as a girl
Wearing Wig
Hair different
Parted different so can't see freckle
Freckles on face covered with makeup?

Was roaring
Spiderman OUtfit
Deorr---cowboy boots

Michael said...

William's hair is long now and can be parted?

Michael said...

"He's got um dark sandy coloured hair, it's SHORT and he's got really big ah brownie/grey coloured eyes."


Why the need to specify for a toddler boy that his hair is SHORT?

This is unnecessary information and it must imply that the hair is either shaved off or long.

Anonymous said...

This link has the foster dad's police interview, can this be analysed please

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1889904/Video-Moments-William-Tyrrells-disappearance-described-father.html

Michael said...

I just watched the interview with the father.

He says "He was wearing bright clothes."

The Dad is trying to impress upon the listener...he's vanished into thin air...his clothes are so bright we would have seen him.

"I can put my hand on his head"

"He has asthma" "Wouldn't have wasted his time going uphill"

"I followed the path down to the cemetary".


"Like water, followed the path of least resistance."

Underground. In a well shaft.

Dad could see top of his head.

Hey Jude said...

Operator: OK can you describe him to me how tall, obviously not very tall but approximately...
Foster Mother: No, he'd be about two and a half feet. He's wearing a Spider-man outfit...um.

The “would be” - does she put it that way because she doesn’t know William’s height? She obviously doesn’t as she approximates. As if to say, if he’d been measured recently, he would be’ - she doesn’t know. The operator maybe already knew by that point in her questioning, that the mother wouldn’t know her son’s height.

—-

The mother passes over the question, “Would he have had any shoes on, do you know?”
Unfortunately, it was a compound question, of which she chose to address only the second part about any other distinguishing features.

It quite often turns out that a missing young child was not wearing shoes at the time he/she disappeared, due to his/her death having occurred inside the home. If his play shoes were at the door, it could be the case that William went missing without any shoes. It could be significant that she chose to pass over the question about shoes, in favour of giving a description of a hidden birthmark, visible only when the hair is parted to the left.

——

Operator: How long has he been missing?

Foster Mother: I th... well, I think, well, we've been looking him for him now for about fifteen or twenty minutes but....

Operator: OK.

Foster Mother: Ah, I thought it could be five, it could be longer 'cause he was just playing around here we heard him and then we heard nothing. 

—-

She does not answer the question of how long he has been missing, giving only how long, approximately they have been looking for him.

“I thought it could be five” is not specific; the mother expects the operator to interpret ‘five’ as five minutes, when it could be five hours, or longer - generally, people tend to avoid telling a direct lie. ‘Five’ is not five minutes. She also only ‘thought’ it could be five, which is to continue to give vague information. Why does she not say something more specific, such as, “I know it was at least five minutes before I realised he was missing.”?



Anonymous said...

Behaving or living in a noisy riotous manner.
‘a roaring boy’

John said...

William Tyrell: Inside the divided inquest into 3-year-old's disappearance

1 Apr, 2019 7:23am

12 minutes to read

Snipped:

The foster mother spent several hours in the witness box, tearfully remembering William's last morning.

Craddock walked her through the morning's games with William and his sister, a "mummy monster" game with the foster mother and a "daddy tiger game" on his own.

Weeping, the foster mother recounted how she heard William's last roar, then "nothing" and how she raced around looking for him thinking "he's not brave enough" to go off hiding.

At the end of day one, the foster mother came off the stand and was embraced by the foster father in court, but continued her testimony into day two.

She told the court Nanna had thought William too "hyperactive, boisterous" in his play immediately before he vanished.


Was this discipline gone wrong?

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=12218005

John said...

^^ i don't know why that will not display my G/account?

Michael said...

It’s BS. There was no lion game.

Just like Deorr.

They last saw him at the campfire with the Grandpa at the campground.

DEORR WAS NEVER EVEN THERE.

SAME WITH THIS BOY.

FATHER CARRIED HIM DOWNHILL. PUT HIM IN A WELL. THE DAD DID IT.

THEY SHAVED HIS HEAD. THEY SAW THE FRECKLE. BEFORE HE “DISAPPEARED”

Michael said...

LION GAME = LYIIN’ GAME

Anonymous said...

I'm watching a 60 minutes episode on this case. It's very interesting. It includes an interview with the foster parents. The episode (in 3 parts) can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTh6DM5FEAY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H5fhsGSVOM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxxLQ_K5ljY

In the first episode, the foster mother mentions at least twice a tree she was trying to let William climb in. She says he didn't want to because it was too high. Could he have fallen out of it? On (top of) his head? From what I've watched so far, I think it may have been an accident. The foster mother described how she was looking for William saying things like "I can't hear you", "talk to me", "he's gone". I get the impression she may have tried to revive him in vain. If that is the case, she at one point had to part with him and may have caressed the top of his head. At that point she may have seen the freckle. Maybe that was the last image she had of him and why she blurted out the following during the 911 call:
"Um, um, um he has oh he's got a freckle on the top of his head when you part the hair on the left hand side (...) you'll see a freckle on the top of his head."
Could the foster father have taken his body somewhere during the 911 call? He was not at the grandmother's house at that time supposedly to get better phone reception.

Also, interestingly, at 12:03 in the first part of the interview it is as if the foster mother has a slip of the tongue saying William is dead. I’ve watched it a few times now and it is as if she says "dead" and then realizes it and in a split second turns it into "he's disappeared":
“ And then I [raced back ???] and I said to mum: “He’s not there, he he’s gone.” And then she said: “What do you mean he’s gone?” And I said: dead, he’s disappeared, he’s not there.“

Autumn

Michael said...

Thank you Autumn.

I will watch & tell you my impressions.

Anonymous said...

From a reportage by Nine News Australia about day two of the inquest into William’s disappearance (apparently the foster mum told one of the neighbors that William had hit his head):

“(…) today it was the foster mother’s turn to relive the search for the three-year-old. From the outset police treated the investigation as a case of “little boy lost”. But today in the witness box the foster mother said she knew straight away it was far more sinister. “My immediate thought was somebody has taken him, he is gone.” In her frantic searching around the houses, in the bush and in the drains, she thought she heard a scream: “it was similar to the sound of when a child hurts themselves… quick, high-pitched and sharp.” But there was nothing: “maybe it was a bird did I imagine it”. (…) Ann Mary Shapely was the first to speak to William’s foster mother: “she was upset and saying he has hit his head and can’t hear me or he’s been taken as he always answers me”.”

Autumn

Michael said...

I just started watching.

This morning when I woke up I was thinking about this case, and I had a strong "flash" of "The boy in the box" case. Have you heard of that case?

In "The boy in the box case" The boy was found dead in a box in PA with a freshly and haphazardly shaved head.
In the past decade a detective became convinced that the boy had been made to dress as a girl and that his long hair was shaved in an attempt to disguise his identity after he died. His pictures were circulated everything at the time, but noone knew of a missing "boy"or recognized his picture. The case was never solved. This detective is convinced that the boy had been made to live as a girl and that is one reason noone recognized the missing boy.

Observations about William's case:

1) As I stated and explained earlier, I believe his head had been recently shaved due to the mother's unnecessary inclusion of the descriptor "short hair", Also freckle was visible to her recently although hair normally covered it.

2) Watching part 1 of video: I can see many female toys, dolls etc. Also, William "couldn't sleep" without a female doll the parents show the interviewer.

continued

Michael said...

I believe William's hair was shaved and may have been long prior to the disappearance.

Michael said...

The doll is called "Little Tara"

Michael said...

Worst acting ever from William's "Mum"

Anonymous said...

I think the foster mother's words are all perfectly normal responses to the questions she was asked. The operator is asking too many leading questions and compound questions. Even regarding the mark on the head, the operator asked about any distinguishing features, and the foster mother gave her one.

Michael said...

The Mom said "Washing was piling up."

She called the repairman to fix the washing machine.

NOT GOOD.

Michael said...

Oh I can tell she's lying.

About everything.

Michael said...

The call from Mum to the washing machine repairman (sex offender) asking if the new part had come in may have been a "code".

WAs William trafficked?

Leigh said...

I am new to this forum and am learning so much about statement analysis. This is a general question-is there a forum where other statements from cases can be analyzed by everyone? There is a case that I have been following closely and would like to see if I'm missing something in the analysis of her statement.

Anonymous said...

Michael, yes, I had heard of "The boy in the box"-case but avoided looking into it because that title is so horrible. What you say about it sounds intriguing though, so maybe I will check it out.

I don't think they dressed William up as a girl, at least I see no signs of that in the videos and photos of him. The girl toys may have been his sister's. Yes, his favorite toy was a doll but I think that doesn't necessarily mean anything. His favorite outfit was the Spiderman outfit and he also had Spiderman toys. Spiderman is more of a boy thing. There is something curious in this respect though (Adrian also mentioned it): in the 60 minutes episode only one daughter is mentioned, so why did the foster mother say "my other daughter" in the 000 call (000 is the Australian 911)?

I think you may be onto something with your speculations about roaring, Michael. Right after William had disappeared, the foster mother reportedly told one of the neighbors William had hit his head. At the inquest she futhermore said she thought she heard a scream. A “quick, high pitched and sharp” scream. “And then nothing.” Was William roaring with pain (and then nothing)? And why didn’t she say this in the 000-call?

I think the foster mom sounds too business-like in the 000 call (even though her voice is shaking a bit). As if she’s making an appointment with the doctor. The most baffling thing is: she never asks for help. I would expect that to be the number 1 reason why she called.

I also find the following quote from the 000-call interesting:
”No, no, no, no well not that I no not that I'm aware of. We were just, I was out there talking with my mum and my other daughter so...”
This is the foster mother’s response to the operator’s question if there wasn’t anyone suspicious in the area. I agree with what Adrian wrote: the initial repeated “no” could represent “you’re way off track.” The foster mother then weakens this initial response: “not that I’m aware of”. Did she ponder the possibility of blaming William’s disappearance on suspicious strangers? It’s exactly what she did later on. During the inquest she said she saw no less than three suspicious cars and even exchanged fleeting “Why are you watching me? I’m watching you” glances with one of the driver’s on the morning William disappeared. Why did she not mention that in her original statement? But the most interesting part of the above quote is yet to come. After denying and subsequently entertaining the possibility that anyone suspicious was in the area, the foster mom – probably without realizing it – points the finger firmly at herself: “I was out there”.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Leigh, I don't know of such a forum. What I have done a few times is post my thoughts about certain cases in this comment section and see if people react to it (sporadically they did, mostly they didn't).

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Full transcript of a 22-minute interview by NSW Police with William's foster parents on this blog:

http://williamtyrrelldisappearance.blogspot.com/2015/10/in-their-words-william-tyrrells-parents.html

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Many interesting statements in the transcript mentioned in my previous comment, for example:

Foster mother: "All these little things that I just remember, it was just, a normal family, doing normal family things, with their grandmother. D had an appointment which is not unusual, he works remotely. We were going to wait for him to come home and then we were going to go and visit Dad’s grave, then we were going to go out, so we’d planned the day. And I look at that picture and I just think, minutes, minutes, and our world has changed. His sister no longer has a brother, we no longer have a son, we no longer have a child, we no longer have our boy. My Mum is coping with her own grief because it happened at her house, it’s just awful."

Autumn

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Lucia showed a good example of the discipline within analysis:

she may have felt this or that, but restrained opinion to principle.

Good work, Lucia!

Peter

John said...

In the transcript (thanks Autumn) they talk about tree's and how he doesn't like heights Did he fall?


if he was out there in the bush, he would have been found, which you know, as I was walking through the bush with other people, it became more aware to me as time went on that this is not a normal event. This is not a child gone missing in the bush, this is heading down the path of abduction or something more sinister.

Is he buried "down the path" in the "bush"?

Anonymous said...

John, I wondered about something like that too (falling from a tree, I mean), especially since:
1. In both the interview with NSW Police and the 60 minutes interview the foster mother mentioned putting an unwilling/scared William in a climbing tree on the morning of his disappearance (so at least it seems important enough for her to keep mentioning in this context); and
2. Anne Maree Sharpley (the first neighbor to speak to the foster mother on the morning William disappeared) reportedly testified during the inquest that the foster mother told her words to the effect of: “He’s either hit his head and can’t answer me or somebody’s taken him because he knows to answer me.” Why would the foster mother specifically - out of all the possible reasons that William was not responding to her calls - mention as (first) possibility that William had hit his head?

Buried "down the path" -> I believe investigators indicated that the search for William was so thorough that he would have probably been found had he still been in the area (also: a path doesn't seem like a very practical burying place).

Autumn

Anonymous said...

John, I didn't read your comment carefully enough. I thought you suggested that he was buried under a path in the bush, but you probably meant in the bush that is situated down/at the end of the path.

Autumn

John said...

Autumn said

"John, I didn't read your comment carefully enough. I thought you suggested that he was buried under a path in the bush, but you probably meant in the bush that is situated down/at the end of the path."

Yes, it could be possible.

Note the increase in tension ("walking") body posture associated with the "bush"

"I was walking through the bush"

frommindtomatter said...

Thanks for the link Autumn.

Just a snippet from the Police interview, how they have got away with this makes the mind boggle.

Police: When did things start to go awry?

Mother: Well, when I realised that William was missing, I [just], I think back to that moment where I [just] went, I can’t hear him, why, why can’t I hear him, and “I [walked around], [seriously] it was [just] 2, [3] metres away from where we were sitting, and I’ve [just walked out], and I [just see nothing]”

The mother tells us she was sitting 2 to 3 metres away from William. That puts the child about 10 feet away from her. She uses the word “seriously” before giving the distance which is an extra word that was not needed in the sentence. Its inclusion shows she has a need to convince the listener that the child was very close to her. She also uses the word “just” to minimise the distance, again she shows a need to convince.

Here the interesting part I believe they were sat outside the front of the house which makes her statement of “I walked around” make total sense as we deduce she walked round the side of the house from her position outside the front of the house (10 feet away??). In the same or possibly next sentence she tells us “and I’ve just walked out, and I just see nothing”. So we have big problem, we are led to believe she walked round from the front of the house but are then given conflicting information saying she had just walked out. She must have walked out of somewhere and that must be the house which means she is deceptive on multiple counts.

She tries to convince about the distance to the child by using the word “seriously” and couples that with minimising language with the word “just” and then gives conflicting information about her location. The fact that she needs to do all this means there is much more to what happened than we are being told.

This case seems very similar to the DeOrre Kunz case in that in order to perpetuate the deception multiple witnesses to what happened must work as team to keep the truth for getting out.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

Adrian, they were sitting on some sort of porch/patio I think. Maybe the foster mother said "I've just walked out" because she saw the porch/patio as part of the house. In that case it would still be in the wrong order though (you first walk out from the porch and then around the house). Also, why does she use present tense here? Isn't she supposed to speak from memory? She uses present tense a lot in this part of the statement. For example: "I see nothing" and "I hear nothing" (in the context of William having disappeared). I would expect her to use past tense and include a direct reference to William. Something like: "I didn't see/hear him anywhere" or "I didn't see/hear William anymore". Instead she uses present tense and the word "nothing". "Nothing" includes "thing". William was not a thing though, he was a person. The words "I see/hear nothing" to me imply either (1) it is pitch black and there is no sound; (2) expected properties of an object are absent (e.g.: TV is broken); or (3) expected behavior of a person is absent (e.g.: William doesn't move or speak anymore).

Autumn

Michael said...

Autumn,

Interesting post.

Yes, look into the Boy in the Box case--it is a dark case but I will tell you that that is the "impression" that came into my head after reading the mother's 911 call and seeing the interview with the father. I did not know about "Little Tara" and had not noticed that the mother had said "my other daughter". This is not a "psychic" gift I have...rather I have been told it is a kind of intelligence where I notice things most other people don't in some way.
The mother is batshit crazy and the fakest thing I've ever seen.
I did notice the mother in the 60 minutes thing say that William wandered around the house and that she called out to him "Do you see Daddy's car" and that William then disappeared. This makes me think that it is possible that the mother arranged for someone to pick up William in their car to sell him or something? Although I am not convinced of that. I think the whole Lion Game thing is a fabrication and the alibi photo of William "roaring" supposedly on the deck was taken at some previous time and then used as an alibi ("see he was there at that time roaring on the deck!") Additionally we don't know what William actually looked like at the time of disappearance. If his hair was longer, shaved, etc. We don't know what crazy Mummy did--was she putting a wig on him? Dressing him as a girl? Maybe the Dad would dress him as a boy?

The fact she says "my other daughter" says it all. No parent would make that mistake verbally and become "confused" about whether their son is female or not. This tells us she is very psychologically screwed up. Not in touch with reality. Maybe in her mind, William was her daughter.

What I think is most likely is that the mother (or possibly father) lashed out at him for not being the "daughter" that she wanted. I do think she is crazy (BPD?) and in her eyes when William failed to become a daughter she then saw him as "bad" or evil.

The father leaving the house to get a better signal on his phone (prior to William's disappearance) is exactly like the Deorr Kuntz case where the father left the area to get a better cell signal. Only in this case, obviously the cell signal was fine judging from the mother making the emergency phone call! WAs the father disposing William's body at that time?

A 3 year old who loves superheroes (spiderman etc) is not going to latch onto "Little Tara" and not be able to go anywhere without "Little Tara" (as the mother stated). My question: If William can't go anywhere without Little Tara, why didn't William have Little Tara when William was roaring and running around the house?

Michael said...

@John

You wrote

In the transcript (thanks Autumn) they talk about tree's and how he doesn't like heights Did he fall?


if he was out there in the bush, he would have been found, which you know, as I was walking through the bush with other people, it became more aware to me as time went on that this is not a normal event. This is not a child gone missing in the bush, this is heading down the path of abduction or something more sinister.

Is he buried "down the path" in the "bush"?



A female police officer actually said the above quote--they showed it on the 60 minutes interview.

Michael said...

From Mind to Matter,

I had the same thought when watching the 60 minutes interview: that I can't believe they got away with it.

The mother's story is riddled with inconsistencies and impossibilities.

The fact they have an earnest detective slaving his life away thinking he is solving an abduction is mindboggling.

Yes also it is like the Kuntz case in that multiple people know the truth.

Michael said...

He's probably buried in the graveyard.

The father says he looked for him in the graveyard.

The mother says they had plans to visit her Dad's grave in the graveyard later that day.

Seriously?
Yeah that is where he most likely is.

Maybe that is why I was getting the impression of him being in a well shaft or "den". In a way a graveyard is many underground dens (deep holes in the earth) and sometimes above ground burial tombs. Who knows maybe they dumped him in a predug grave, covered his tiny body up and then the next day whoever's burial the grave had actually been dug for took place, they lowered the coffin in and covered it up and that is what they might want to look at is where were there predug graves in that graveyard the day William disappeared?

I bet that is where they put him.

Leigh said...

OT-Background information: October 13, 2018, Karlie Guse, a 16-year-old from Chalfant, CA vanished sometime in the early morning from her father (Zac) and stepmother's (Melissa) home. Melissa immediately went to Facebook and made many live videos related to the search for Karlie. I have transcribed October 22, 2018 FB Live video in which Melissa describes what happened in the hours preceding Karlie's disappearance. There is a lot of backstory involved in this case. Karlie's biological mom, Lindsay, believes Zac and Melissa have something to hide and that Karlie is deceased. Lindsay moved away to a larger city several years prior and wanted Karlie to continue to live in a small town. They had a close relationship. Melissa's story and timeline of events has changed several times.

Melissa Guse Facebook Live October 22, 2018 @ 1:51 p.m.

Hey team Karlie, this is Melissa Guse ,um, today's day 9 ,um, of Karlie being missing. I’m on here to share more info. I just spoke to the sergeant, and they are at a dead end. And, now I can release more information about the events, just, lots of questions that I haven't been allowed to talk about because of the investigation. And so, I'm here to tell you guys all about it. Um, Friday night I picked up Karlie from town. She was supposed to be at a football game. She had lied to me and told me that she was at the football game. And when she called me she said she was sorry, I was with friends, I'm sorry, can you please just come get me? So I drove to town, and picked her up. She was by herself. And, yeah, when she got in the car I said, what's going on, where have you been? I've been with friends, I got high, I'm so sorry, I'm so sorry, please don't be mad at me, I'm sorry, and I'm, like, smoked marijuana? Like,okay. She was very paranoid. She was scared. And, she hadn't smoked weed in a month. And, being a mother, I wasn't going to take her to the hospital. She's high on marijuana... why would I, I just, it didn't cross my mind. She was fine. We talked the whole way home. I brought her home. We spent the night. When we got home, she was still paranoid, almost, like, extremely stoned and, um, we got home and then I had her eat. She had a salad. She, I made her eat a powerbar and she was just very paranoid. And she wanted me to spend the night with her. So, um, hmm, g-her brothers were awake, and Zac was awake, and we hung out, and she ate. And then she was, like, can we go to bed? And, I was like, yeah, and she was like, well can you come sleep with me? And I was like yeah, sure, why not... whatever, I’ll lay with you and watch a movie. And, um, so, um, we hung out for a little bit in the kitchen, talked a bunch, and then her brothers went to bed and so, then I went to bed with her and then we got up. (con't)


Leigh said...

OT (con't) I had to go to the bathroom, brush my teeth, wash my face, she was by my side the whole time. She didn't want to leave my side. She, yes, she was paranoid. And, um, still just not thinking, well, maybe she did smoke something that was bad. Maybe somebody gave her something, I don't know. And, so, we ended up back in the living room with her brothers for a little bit. Watched a movie and she was just still kind of paranoid. And then we went back to bed and I spent the whole night with her. I mean, I was awake and then I’d doze off... and she's just there, she was just hanging out. She was awake. She wanted to paint my toenails. She wanted to color. She wanted to do a whole lot of stuff. And so, I was, I was up and then I would doze off and then I was up and I would doze off and she was there the whole time. And I was really scared to put this out there because so many people are judgemental and I don't want her story to die. And I was so scared just to say anything and the investigators are like you can't talk to anybody about this because the FBI was involved and if anybody finds out or they get spooked or somebody tips somebody off then, she could be right here and then she could be gone. So, this is hard right now, because I just, I don't want people to judge her. Kids smoke pot all the time. And so, around 5:40, 48 was my last text in the morning. Um, and, uh, I'd fell back asleep and then that's when I woke up and she was gone. And I wish I wouldn't have fallen asleep. But, you guys have to know the details and I was allowed to share them. So, I wanted to put them out there because obviously the trolls are roaming and, um, I'm not a liar. And ,I don't have anything to hide. And, I'm-it's okay to tell you guys. You guys all want her home. Who cares what she did? And she's not disor-disoriented anymore, if she is. And, I said that in the beginning, not even because of the way she was acting, but because if she's been out in the desert for 3 hours, yeah, she's going to be disoriented. She didn't take anything with her... the people that saw her said she only had white T-shirt and gray pants and that was it. She didn't have a water bottle. I don't, I don't know what she's got and if she's out in the desert, it's hot here. And those of us that live here, you're dehydrated, you're thirsty, you're hungry. What if she fell and hit her head? And that... so, I woke up it was like 7:18 and I said cuz I was in her bed, and her door was open all night, so, I couldn't a heard that. And, um, I was in her bed and she was just gone. And I immediately got up and I looked around the house and I'm just going, where is she? Did she wh-where, I just don't know. Where the hell is she? And I go in and tell Zac- Karlie's not in her bed and so just started to panic and got in our cars and just started driving all around. I drove my Corolla out in the boonies, over boulders, and Zac took the truck and he took the binoculars and then, you know, two hour point. Two hours was the point where something's wrong. And then, for the neighbor to say he saw her at 6:30 in the morning, is what he told me, but he's older. And then, the three confirmed people. Two are neighbors that live up here, and the one other person that saw her was a wooder driving by and just saw her standing inside the barbed wire fence. So, in the timeline that they say. And I was like, how could I have missed her, you know? She was just right there, just, something's wrong. Somebody took her. There's just something. And I wanted to put it out there. And, I want you guys all to know. And so, if you needed to know all that great. And, if you didn't care great. Cuz I don't care. I just want her, we want her home. And, thank you for the continued support. And, uh, let's bring Karlie home and thank you all again.

frommindtomatter said...

Autumn

It is very strange language for sure. I agree with you that if someone says they see nothing it represents them being blind, like you said that could be because of darkness or other factors. In general it would be fair to say we always see something so in this case we expect “I saw he was gone” etc.. The full quote of “I see nothing, I hear nothing, I’m speechless” reminds me of the three monkeys. See no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil. All the language used is negative and we have the repeated words “I just see nothing. I see nothing”

I tell you what I find interesting Autumn, the number of times the Mother uses the word “just” throughout the Police interview. Peter did an article on the word just which was very interesting and I have done a lot of research on the word myself as it has a lot of meanings. Peter used the example of the Police officer asking a driver how many drinks he had drunk with the answer most frequently given being “just two officer”. When used in that context represents a comparison. We expect an honest person to say “two officer” without the extra word just inserted. So our suspicions arise when we see the extra word as it suggests the person is comparing his answer against the number of drinks they really had. My notes on “just”-

Just – just happened, just arrived etc.. - Here it is used to mean recently

Just – I just touched it and it broke - Here it is used to minimise actions, “that’s all I did” “I only touched it”

Just – this one is just £100 – It is being compared to something which costs more

Just - This is just what I mean - Exactly or precisely

Just - The weather is just glorious - Actually; really; positively

Just - The arrow just missed the mark - By a narrow margin; barely

I think analysing how many possible deceptive uses of the word “just” the mother uses would be a good thing to do. If we look at he example we were discussing before we would have

“I just see nothing. I see nothing”

What logical use of the word “just” does the Mother imply with “I just see nothing” and does it make sense? I agree with you, why doesn’t she simply say “I couldn’t see him” and give specificity to her words.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

Michael, I would not be surprised if the foster mother did not say "Do you see daddy's car" at all. At first her story was that she and her mother were drinking tea on the porch and heard a last "roar" from William "and then nothing". No mention was made of "Do you see Daddy's car". The foster mother also specifically said in the emergency call that she did not see anyone suspicious nearby at the time William disappeared. Pretty soon the foster parents may have realized that their story didn't add up. It is a quiet neighborhood where kids don't just go missing from one moment to another. Extensive searches were carried out and William was not found. How could that be? I think the foster parents quickly came up with the scenario of a kidnapper to move suspicion away from themselves. The foster mother allegedly saying "Do you see daddy's car" fits right into that scenario because it implies William walked towards the road where he supposedly was grabbed by a kidnapper. The foster mother suddenly “remembering” that she saw three suspicious cars (three is the number of liars) nearby and even exchanging weird “glances” with one of the drivers also fits the kidnapper scenario perfectly. I just don’t find it believable. I also find the “tiger” or “lion” game questionable: too much emphasis is put onto it.

I don’t think the mother is batshit crazy. Nor do I have any inkling she dressed William in girls’ clothes. However, I have a strong feeling (unfortunately not based on principles, merely on her words and intonation) that she knows what happened to William. By not telling the truth (i.m.o.), I think the foster parents made the life of the birth parents hell. I saw a short, very moving interview with the birth mother, she is heartbroken. If the foster parents covered up William’s death, one of the reasons for that may have been the prevention of a possible damage claim by the birth parents based on – for instance – negligent homicide.

Your comment about the cell phone I find very interesting (unless the foster mother used a landline). It seems doll Tara was indeed William’s favorite toy because there is a video of him doing some sort of karaoke and the doll is lying in front of him on the keyboard (in the first minutes of the first part of the 60 minutes episode).

Both the female police officer and the foster father made a very similar comment about “bush” and “abduction”/”something more sinister”. Maybe one was parroting the other.

Michael, I laughed out loud at your following comment (as I had thought something similar): “The fact they have an earnest detective slaving his life away thinking he is solving an abduction is mindboggling.”

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Adrian, I hadn't thought of the three monkeys (hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil). How very perceptive. Indeed that is almost literally what she says. I remember Peter's article about the word "just". I'll take a look at the foster mother's use of "just" and see if I have an opinion about it.

Autumn

michael said...

Why did they foster William?

It wasn't for the money as they seem well off.

Was it so bored crazy Mummy could have her "other daughter"?

Michael said...

The Boy in the Box Case

Read the wiki on the case:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_in_the_Box_(Philadelphia)

This case involves theories that the boy had been fostered.
I get a strong impression of similarities to this case.
I read about this case years ago, yet it came into my head the morning after reading the 911 call from the William case & watching the 60 min episode--my brain was getting an "impression".

There is something about the psychology of the 2 cases that contributes to the impression I have.

Read the testimony of Martha M.
That is the only real lead they have, and I actually believe what Martha M says (although she told her psychiatrist the information).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_in_the_Box_(Philadelphia)

Michael said...

I just reread the wiki thing for the first time in probably 8 years and I had forgotten that Martha says that the Boy in the Box died when the boy threw up baked beans and the mother slammed his HEAD repeatedly into the floor. His cause of death is listed as blunt force trauma.

Similarity with William's mother saying "he hit his head".

Michael said...

A detective feels that noone recognized the Boy in the Box even though his likeness was circulated everywhere and even mailed out with everyone's gas bills because he had been made to live as a girl and that his hair was haphazrdly cut after he died (because it had been--there were clumps of hair stuck to his body) to try to disguise the body as the boy had had long hair like a girl before he died and that's how people would have remembered him as (a girl) even though he was a boy.

I believe Martha M's story.

Deni Tomkinson said...

Sack the police, you lot have solved it!!!
Honestly, don't you think the police have covered every bit of this. You lot need your tin foil hats replacing, the craziness is leaking into your brains..
If you put as much effort into really looking for William, rather than blaming the wrong people, he might have been found by now..
Absolutely astonishing, armchair detectives at their worse!

Anonymous said...

Deni Tomkinson, "sack the police" indeed because DCI Gary Jubelin - the detective who led the search for William Tyrrell - was removed from the case over misconduct allegations recently. It seems the NSW Police didn't think he was doing such a great job since an internal investigation is currently underway into DCI Jubelin.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

The foster parents had planned to go to Nanna’s house in Kendall on Friday 12 September 2014. However, they went one day earlier. On Thursday they picked William and his sister up from daycare for the 4-hour drive to Nanna's house. This early departure was a last minute decision according to the foster parents. A surprise for both the children and Nanna. Nobody knew about it beforehand. Nevertheless, the foster mother wants us to believe that William was kidnapped the next morning as early as 10:15 AM. Who would have even known that William was at Nanna’s house? The only thing I can think of is that somebody saw William at the McDonald’s (where the family stopped to eat underway) and followed the family to Nanna’s house hoping they could snatch William away at some point. However, the circumstances seem far from ideal for that scenario. Nanna’s house is on a cul de sac and not close to the street. Possible kidnappers had no way of knowing if and when an opportunity would arise to kidnap William. Also, if kidnappers wanted to quietly snatch William away why would they park two cars with blinded windows visibly and suspiciously in the middle of the street and a third one in a neighboring driveway (with the driver exchanging suspicious glances with the foster mother)? I believe the foster mother is the only who saw these cars. It all seems a bit over the top.

In the police interview the foster mother explains that she was taking photos of William on the morning of his disappearance. She did photo books of what they did as a family every year. She says she took three pictures that morning because she wanted the children to have memories of Nanna and her house. One of the three photo’s is of William in the Spiderman outfit on Nanna’s patio (so we know exactly how long William’s hair was that day). I think the photo looks rather staged. William has his mouth wide open as if in “mid-roar” (as the mother said in the 60 minutes interview). Another thing we know is that the foster mother wanted William to climb a tree that morning. She actually more or less insisted that he climb a tree even though he had indicated that it was too high and he wanted to get out. Why would the foster mother insist if William didn’t want to? Did she want to take a photo of Spiderman-William in a climbing tree in Nanna’s beautiful backyard? In that case, she had to leave William alone in the tree (she couldn’t hold him since she had to take some distance to take the photo). Perhaps William tried to get out of the tree by himself?

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

Autumn

P: Did you think initially that oh, kids being kids, he’s in a Spiderman uniform, he’s probably just climbing trees?

M: No it’s not William, it’s not William, he doesn’t do that. On that morning, before he went missing, I’d put him in a tree because Mum’s got some good climbing trees, and he was in it, and he said, “No Mummy it’s too high, get me down,” and I said to him “Why, why don’t you try?”, and he said “No Mummy too high, get me down,” so he wouldn’t be in a tree, it’s not in him.

Your point about the tree climbing is interesting. Although the Police interviewer brought it up she still reacted in a sensitive way to it.

M: “No it’s [not] William, it’s [not] William, he [doesn’t] do [that].”

We see repeated words which show sensitivity and a need to convince. Also the sentence is all in the negative. The language seems very defensive and is followed with an explanation of why he wouldn’t have done it. We see at the end -

“[so] he wouldn’t be in a tree”

We expect an innocent person to simply answer the question with something like “No, he doesn’t climb trees” but the mother feels the need to deny and explain any possibility of it.

““Why, why don’t you try?” - Difficulty in getting her words out with the repeated/ stutter of words.

I think we all agree there is negligence involved here, and due to it most likely an accident occurred and was covered up. Has anyone seen any remorse from the family? Have they blamed themselves for what has happened? I mean let’s say we believe their story. I know most people would be riddled with guilt if a child had gone missing in their care, they would blame themselves even if the circumstances suggested they shouldn’t. I might have missed it but I haven’t noticed them taking responsibility for anything here.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

Yes!! Those are the types of things I prefer to read! All of the reading things into every word and posting suppositions muddies the water. My daughter is a freshman in high school and I have been teaching her the principles of sa and she used it the other day and helped a friend in need! The friend was trying to share a problem without telling the full truth and my daughter figured out that he had been sexually abused by his step mother! He broke down after she figured it out because now it's not a secret, he's not the one that reported it, and he'll still get the help he needs. I thank you Peter. If you weren't so willing to share your wisdom that boy would still be in that situation .

Anonymous said...

Adrian, I would expect to see at least some guilt from the foster parents regardless of what happened to William. After all he was in their care and he disappeared on their watch. I haven't seen explicit signs of guilt. Maybe that is a strategy though, because the biological parents might use such signs to instigate or bolster a claim for damages.

Another thing that struck me is that the foster parents never even mention the biological parents. At least not in the interviews I have listened to. I would expect them to feel utterly sorry for (and guilty towards) the biological parents since they must realize that the biological parents are completely heartbroken too.

In addition: the foster parents don’t show any signs of anger towards the alleged kidnapper(s). The birth mother did though. I listened to an interview with her and she said – without being specifically asked – that the kidnapper should get a bullet.

What I also realized is: it’s actually very weird that the faces of the foster parents are blurred in every interview video and that we don’t know their names. If the foster parents really thought William might still be alive, wouldn’t they want their identity known so that people with tips or knowledge about his whereabouts etc. could find them? It’s as if they are in hiding.

The foster parents also i.m.o. don’t show enough signs of concern about William’s well-being in the police interview (in the 60 minutes interview a little more). It’s all about their own grief and their daughter having to learn to live without her brother. I thought the following sentence from the mother (in the police interview) is very telling: “His sister no longer has a brother, we no longer have a son, we no longer have a child, we no longer have our boy.” Apparently they think or know William is no longer alive or else he wouldn’t have stopped being a their son and his sister’s brother.

I checked the foster mother’s statements in the police interview again and you are right: it is crazy how often she says “just”. Just as an (other) example:
“We just don’t have our boy, we just…we have no idea where he is, we don’t know who’s got him, we don’t know what’s happening to him, we know nothing about it - we just want it to be over.”
Could the first “just” mean that the foster mother is actually comparing in her mind not having their boy with a more complicated situation, e.g.: William hit his head, died and they made his body disappear? The second “just” could mean that she had an inclination to make her actual knowledge of “where he is, (…) [etc.]” seem smaller than it actually is. Perhaps the third “just” means that she compares (1) the entire situation simply going away (i.e.: not thinking and talking about William’s disappearance anymore) to (2) an alternative outcome such as: William being found and the truth coming out. Also why does she say “We know nothing about it” instead of “We know nothing” -> what is “it” (to me “it” seems to imply that they know something)?

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Below is a transcript of part of the 60 minutes interview with the foster parents (see here as from 6:44):

Foster mother: “We wake up, ehm, we hear giggling and laughter and me telling everybody to be quiet and not wake up Nanna ‘cause Nanna was still asleep.”

Voice over: “On that morning William dresses in his favorite Spiderman outfit. His businessman father briefly leaves the house to get better mobile phone reception and run a few jobs in town. William, his sister and mum go outside to play and explore in Nanna’s expansive backyard.”

Foster mother: “I thought I’d see if he wanted to climb some trees so I was holding him up and saying “Do you want to climb a tree?” and he was like “No mummy, too high”. And then we were playing and I was playing, ehm, mummy monster’s and he’s chasing me and I’m doing the whole “wraah” thing and, you know, I’m chasing him and he’s giggling his head off.”

Voice over: “That great photo of, of William and his Spiderman suit that was taken, eh, on the deck.”

Foster mother: “Yes, it was really weird, ‘cause he was, he was doing “wraah daddy tiger” and that photo I took was, ehm, he was actually looking up at me and I’ve sort of crouched down in a really weird position and taken the photo and, ehm, it was “mid-roar” that’s why his mouth was wide open. That was the “wraah daddy tiger"-thing and that was a “wraah”.”

Voice over: “When was the last you, you saw him?”

Foster mother: “Playing around that patio area. Mum and I were sitting on two chairs and then he jumped off. And he was playing on the, the grass and then what he did was, he went, ehm, just around to the right. I could still hear him. He was roaring, eeehm, and then, ehm, …. nothing.”

Voice over: “What was the very last you saw or heard of William?”

Foster mother: “That was it. So that’s, yeah, that’s my last sound… my last sound memory of him is “wraah” and then it’s nothing. And then it’s just silence and he’s just vanished.”

Autumn

Anonymous said...

I personally like to read the suppositions of other people as long as they are based on the words of the statement that is analyzed. To me it's interesting to read what other people see in a statement even if I don't see things the same way. In my opinion it doesn't detract from the professional analyses given by Peter and guest bloggers. I have posted suppositions and opinions and thoughts in this comment section that were based on the words of a statement but not on SA principles. Some recent posts (by advanced analysts?), Peter's subsequent post of 4-4-2019 11:01 AM and Anonymous's post of 2:25 PM give me the idea that that is maybe not appreciated and that this comment section is not intended for that. If that is the case, could you please communicate that to me in a direct and straight manner instead of (unaddressed) comments talking about "blah blah" and ""strange" people" and invoking "guidance" and "feelings about this and that" and “muddies the water”, etc.? I would really appreciate that.

Thanks,

Autumn

Michael said...

I am getting a very dark vibe from this case.

Did you hear the way the father says

“Happy Birthday, William”

in a deep menacing tone.

William was abused by both parents.

The mother is disgusting with her “Little Tara” & retarded babbling explanations of what William was doing in back of the house when he disappeared.
Also, why would you ever try to put a 3 yr old in a high tree & try to make him climb it like he is a pet/animal?

I wonder what she washed in the wasing machine?
Evidence?
Did she put William in there as a punishment?

frommindtomatter said...

Autumn, you make some good points. Like you say, we are not seeing guilt from the parents and I would expect that as it is a natural response, you can’t fake it. Parents feel guilty if a child has a small tumble because they think they should have been there to catch them. You make a good point about the anger as well; we expect anger directed towards the alleged abductor or at least some form of bad feelings expressed. All we seem to get from the parents is “confusion”.

Most of their language is in the negative, when we expect them to say something like “I want to know where he is” we instead get “we have no idea where he is”.

The part you posted with the repeated uses of the word just is interesting. All in the negative but two phrases really stand out. You commented on the later.

“we have no idea where he is”

“we know nothing about it”

These statements throw up red flags. We all have an idea about things and whether we are right or wrong in our thoughts does not matter. It is an outright deception for them to say “we have [no] idea”. They prove themselves deceptive by in one breathe saying that, and in the next talking of possible abduction. If you have no idea then you can say nothing because there is no thought to create the words with.

We have the same problem with ““we know nothing about it”. That again is blatant deception. They have made various statements in different interviews etc.. Telling the story, a story which shows by their own words they know 99% of what happened. They know that their child was unsupervised and out of sight when he went missing (if that is what happened). When someone tells you they “know nothing” it is their way of saying don`t ask me because I can’t help you.

An example would be if your car was stolen. You may ask someone in the vicinity if they saw anything. If they had not seen anything they would tell you exactly that “sorry I didn’t see anything”. What would you think if they said “I know nothing about it”?

It`s like you said Autumn if they had said something along the lines of “we don’t know what happened” we would deem that reasonable, but for them to say “we know nothing about it” starts alarm bells ringing. Firstly they are offering without request that information; we question why innocent people feel the need to do so. Secondly we have more negative language used and again the fact that they do know a lot of what went on that day.

If I was to tell someone “I have nothing to say” they should think then why the hell did you open your mouth. If you have nothing to say you say nothing. So if I know nothing why would I tell someone that I know nothing? The fact that I know nothing means I have no information to give. Also you mentioned how they finished the statement with “it”. I agree with you, they are identifying the thing they say they know nothing about. By identifying it they are automatically contradicting their own words, they in their own words acknowledge the existence of “it” and can identify it.

Adrian.

Sandy said...

I am absolutely loving how you guys are solving this crime.
Amazing.
The talent here shows they won’t get away with it.
Justice always prevails.
Except for TB.

mylife said...

Listening and reading the foster mother's statements and dialogue, I think she was being coached by someone in the background. That's why she so matter of fact and emotionally devoid. It was like she was reporting the whole thing as witness, rather than a concerned mother.

Anonymous said...

Yes good point,what was washed in the washing machine??I thought the washing machine was broken and they were waiting on a part?Usually you wouldnt use a machine if you were waiting on a part ,as you wouldnt want to do any more damage to it.Must have been very desperate to use that machine

Unknown said...

Why did she ask the foster father do you have William had she not seen him since the foster dad left .

Anonymous said...

I am the one that said I like the type of comments Lucia offered. What ai meant by muddies the water is that the ongoing comments such as Michael's are way far apart from actual statement analysis and the principles Peter focuses on and reads way too much into it. I prefer when it is concise and sticks to the basic principles of sa. I am an adult in the autism spectrum and the extraneous comments are too much for me. It doesn't mean that they aren't welcome it just means for me I have a hard time deciphering through them. I've learned to scroll through and pick out the posters I know I can read and learn from.

frommindtomatter said...

One simple question with a short answer appears to speak volumes.

Police: So you raised the alarm immediately?

Mother: Well I raced around for a bit, then went down and got the neighbour to help, then D came back, because he had a meeting.

The mother tells us “she [raced round] for a [bit]”. The only verb in the sentence is “raced” there is no mention of looking or searching from her. She commits with the pronoun “I” to racing round but does not introduce why. She tells us she did that for a “bit” which is an unspecified amount of time. We are left with no information at all in her words; essentially she tells us something but gives us nothing.

An example of this type of language would be if someone was to say “I drove for a while”. The listener would be left wondering what the point was to the statement as it is incomplete; it does not give a reason for the action.

After getting her neighbour she tells us “then D came back, [because] he had a meeting”. We notice that she needs us to know where D had come back from. We expect her to say “then D returned from his meeting” or even “D arrived home” either would be fine, but by using the word “because” she has shown that she has a need to convince us that he was at one. If she had told us that D had simply returned it would leave open the question of where did he return from? She made sure that question was answered before it could ever be asked. It is worth noting that the Police were not contacted until the Fathers return.

What we see in the language are two contrasting behaviours. One is a person who saying a lot but telling us nothing and the other is someone who has a need to tell us something but only when they have a need to convince. Simply put they are telling us what they want us to know and nothing more.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

Leigh.

OT-Karlie Guse

Thanks for the transcript it must have taken some time do it. I want to have a look at it when I get time. I had a quick read through just to get an idea of what happened and Melissa uses a lot of deceptive and unexpected language. One example below -

“And, being a mother, I wasn't going to take her to the hospital. She's high on marijuana... why would I, I just, it didn't cross my mind”

She implies that being a mother means not taking your child to hospital which is worrying logic. In the next breathe she tells us that the idea never crossed her mind which makes us question why she is introducing it into her language. She doesn’t have to tell us any of this; we would be none the wiser if she hadn’t, but we find that she has a need to tell us something which did not cross her mind. We see negative language with the use of “I wasn`t” and “I didn’t” and also self-censoring “I just, it didn't cross my mind”.

There are two references to “hanging” given in the statement. We are told that Karlie was paranoid and didn’t want to be alone so there could be a connection there.

“And, um, so, um, we [hung] out for a little bit in the kitchen”

“bed and I spent the [whole] night with her. I mean, I was awake and then I’d doze off... and she's [just] there, she was just [hanging] out”

Melissa dint just spend the night with her daughter but the [whole] night. She adds the extra word which isn’t needed to make sure we know it was the whole night. But then weakens her statement by saying she was dozing off and waking up. She finishes by telling us that Karlie was “Just there”, she was “just hanging out”. “Just there” is non-specific in regards to location and “just hanging out” is again non descriptive. She fails to give us where she was and what she was doing at that moment.

Looks interesting but there is a lot of text to analyse in the full statement.

Adrian.

Michael said...

BECAUSE he had a meeting

Turtlebabble said...

OT - Karlie Guse


Hi Leigh,

Three things stick out to me from a first reading.


1. Her use of descriptive terms related to death. Is this leakage?

“they are at a dead end” “I don’t want her story to die”


2. She tells us “I’m not a liar” rather than saying “I’m telling the truth”. She uses the word “lie” rather than “truth”. That it is stated in the negative makes it sensitive.


3. Her mention of “bathroom”, “teeth” and “wash” and “door”.

“I had to go to the bathroom, brush my teeth, wash my face”

“her door was open all night”

References to “water” and “doors” are related to sexual abuse, “doors” and the “opening of doors” are related to childhood sexual abuse. That she has mentioned these things while discussing her missing stepdaughter is concerning.

The “brushing of teeth” falls into the category of personal hygiene. When personal hygiene is found within a statement particularly when it is unnecessary, it is a strong indication that the subject is concealing information of a personal nature. Often, but not always this is domestic violence.

Anneke_70 said...

Was he ever even there? My theory - end of story......

Leigh said...

Adrian and Turtlebabble-
I appreciate you reading over this transcript. There is so much to decipher in this statement. Her narrative does not move forward chronologically, so that leads me to believe that she is not working from experiential memory. “And, um, so, um, we hung out for a little bit in the kitchen, talked a bunch, and then her brothers went to bed…” Her first reference to "hung out", initially I flagged for sounding like she was more a peer than a stepmother. You mentioned the actual act of hanging, which I hadn’t considered.
I also thought it was unusual to refer to the stepmother’s sons as her brothers-especially considering they are half-siblings. Why not by their names? Why not by the boys?
She then states that after she got ready for bed with all of those activities that are sensitive to sexual and domestic abuse, “And, so we ended up back in the living room with her brothers for a little bit. [ Missing pronoun] watched a movie and she was just still kind of paranoid.” So, it seems that Melissa goes back in time when “her brothers” were still awake and could watch a movie.
You are right-Melissa does use the word “whole” when her sentences are complete without it. Additional words = valuable information. Is she trying to convince that she was there the entire time? Melissa goes as far as to say that Karlie didn’t want to leave her side-going into the bathroom with her. I find that unusual for a 16-year-old to want to be in the bathroom while her stepmom is taking care of hygiene and going to the bathroom herself. There seems to be a need to convince that she was a good and attentive step-mom.
The use of the words “die” and “dead” are very concerning-I had wondered about leakage too. The last reference she made where she stated that “...I don’t want her story to die.” That is bothersome. Karlie’s disappearance is not a mere “story”. Stories can be made up and this is a reality. My take on that statement is that there’s a difference in her mind between Karlie dying and her story dying. Karlie may be dead but she wants her story to survive, or, maybe the facade of the story so there is no legal trouble and public judgment for Melissa and Zac.
When she says, “And I go in and tell Zac-Karlie’s not in her bed and so just started to panic and [missing pronoun] got in our cars and just started driving all around.” She mentions letting her husband (Karlie’s dad) know she can’t find Karlie, but no mention of alerting her brothers or asking them if they’ve seen Karlie. The placement of emotion seems contrived. Peter has said that emotions come after you’ve had time to process them. The placement of panic immediately upon noticing Karlie wasn’t there is not experiential.
Melissa also introduces a scenario where Karlie could be injured. “What if she fell and hit her head?” I wonder if this is in case Karlie is found with a head injury?
The following statement shows a change in reality that isn’t correct. “I drove my Corolla out in the boonies, over boulders, and Zac took the truck and he took the binoculars and then, you know, two-hour point. Two hours was the point where something's wrong.” Previously she mentioned that “[missing pronoun] got in our cars and just started driving all around”. Then she said “I drove my Corolla” and “Zac took the truck”. She also uses two different verbs, “drove” and “took”. Why the difference? DId Zac’s truck take Karlie somewhere? Interestingly enough, Melissa entertains the thought that “ Somebody took her.”
There are times that Melissa slips into the present tense. “She was just right there, just, something's wrong.” There is past and present tense in the same sentence “was” and “something’s”. Also, if she was in bed with Karlie, why would she say “she was just right there”? “There” is further away than “here”. Are you ever “right there” with anyone in bed? If you can reach over and touch someone, that’s “right here”.

frommindtomatter said...

Leigh you make some excellent observations about the case. The order of recall is like you said a total mess. I would suspect that a lot of rumours would have been be circulating in the community about what had happened to Karlie, and Melissa was forced to address some of those in her lengthy and jumbled statement. You said –

” Previously she mentioned that “[missing pronoun] got in our cars and just started driving all around”.

Yes I agree there is a lack of commitment with the missing pronoun but also if you have followed the current William Tyrell case there is a similar language used. I noticed in Williams case that the mother said “she raced around” and the father said started “looking around”. Notice here that Melissa says they “just started driving all around”. We have to take their words literally which leaves us with people who are doing something without connecting it to a reason why. We expect to hear –

“just started driving all around [looking for her]”/ [searching for her]

but the connection isn`t made.

Without a connection we have people who are just driving around without reason. The use of the word “just” suggests minimising language as its meaning could be interpreted as ”only” or “that’s all”. So we then would read the words as meaning all we did was drive around.

The fact that Melissa cannot recall the events correctly points to her fabricating (very badly) her story. We should consider why we even have her words to analyse. They are not from a Police interview or news report, she has given us them freely, but why? She tells us in her own words below.

“But, you guys [have] to know the details and I was allowed to share them. So, I wanted to put them out there [because] obviously the trolls are roaming and, um, [I'm not a liar. And ,I don't have anything to hide.]”

We should believe what she tells us. She gives the reason for her statement and we see it is “[because] obviously the trolls are roaming”. The statement is made not to help find Karlie but to allow her to address the rumours surrounding the case, and also so she can tell everyone “[I'm not a liar. And ,I don't have anything to hide.]” She says “you guys [have] to know the details” because she wants to force her story on them. We expect her to say you guys should know the details or I want to share this with you, but her saying “have to” represents her need to give them. Her motivation is self-preservation.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

Statement Analysis - Mark McClish

Speaking at the International Association of Interviewers on the unique word "just."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCjYbYrSqpg 4mins


-David

frommindtomatter said...

Good link David. “Just” is a fascinating word. It has many meanings and when used to minimise actions it is deceptive. The problem is differentiating between legitimate and deceptive use. As Mark McClish said it can be used to suggest “that’s all I did” when making a statement. If I was asked what I had done today and I replied “I just watched TV” am I being deceptive? If I had spent the day watching TV then I could use the word “just” meaning that’s all I did in my statement. Of course I may have made a cup of tea and gone to the toilet as well but I think most people would not mention those things as they are routine everyday actions.

The difficulty begins If my next door neighbour had been murdered that afternoon and the Police asked me the same question. If I gave the same answer as before an experienced detective may feel I was withholding information by my use of the word “just”. If I had genuinely just watched TV I wouldn’t have to worry as I would be safe in knowing that any investigation into my movements that day would prove my statement was true.

In my previous post I looked at Melissa saying:

“and got in our cars and just started driving all around”

I said if we took “just” as minimising language then we could interpret the words to mean [all we did was drive around]. That would be a strange statement to make. We can look at it two ways, firstly that it was used to minimise actions which means they did more than just drive around. Secondly we could believe the usage of the word “just”(that’s all/only) as genuine which would mean that all they did was drive round. If you are meant to be searching for a missing person I expect someone to be not just driving around but driving around searching/looking for that person. Looking at either the first or second use of the word we end up with the same outcome which is deceptive language.

A clever criminal may commit a crime and then drive round in order to be witnessed by others so as to appear they were looking/searching for a missing person. A bit of theatre on their part.

When the mind delivers the word “just” to the mouth it may be deceptive or it may be genuine. A genuine use of the word “Just” can give as much away as a deceptive one if it doesn’t fit in with the narrative being played out. In Melissas’ case because she did not link a purpose to her driving around it stands out as deceptive because to just drive around when someone is missing does not add up. But also it could represent that other things were done. Both uses don’t add up so I see deception whichever way you look at it. We must also factor in what Leigh noticed which was Melissa did not commit to her words with a pronoun.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Anonymous, Michael's "bad vibes" and baseless scenarios are a distraction to many of us.


.

Michael said...

Well maybe you should heed what I say. I’ve picked up on many vibes far more complex.

Unknown said...

Hello Anonymous.

I read Michael's comments as I do all comments on this page.
Trying to shut people down based on your own opinions is egotistic and rude.
You don't speak for me.

Jo

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous (April 6, 2019 at 10:27 AM) -> thank you for clarifying.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

I remember....
TB
How TB saved me...
At night it bothers me
The most.

I felt sadness today I never got to know him better
Or, actually that he never got to know me better
That's one of the things he wrote to me
"I wish I'd gotten to know you more
But the way things are looking right now
I doubt I'll ever see you again".

It's so sad really.
I know he cared about me
He put his life on the line for me.


Anonymous said...

Why did he care about me so much?
How did he know exactly when to show up?
In order to save me?

Try as I might I don't understand.

I still remember the scanning
He did when he grasped my arm
Scanning me for what kind of danger I was in
And he transmitted the answers to the questions I had been asking him
Into my brain
I could see him
Escaping...scared, intense, anger,,,running, running, as fast as he could, out of breath, running running
Meanwhile he was scanning me
He was doing both at once
Transmitting and scannning.
And I knew
Clear as day
He escaped from prison
He showed me when he transmitted into my brain
I was only 4 years old.
But
He knew I knew
He gave me a wide grin...

He wrote in the letter "When I met you you reminded me of myself. You notice things other people don't. It's a kind of intelligence. Sometimes it gets stronger as you get older."

Anonymous said...

The foster mother took a picture of William in his Spiderman suit on Nanna’s patio on the morning of his disappearance. In the police interview she is asked what she sees when looking at that picture. The foster mother gives a lengthy answer (three paragraphs long) starting with:

I, ‘cause I, I took the photo, I took three photos, I, I do photo books, ehm, of what we do as a family every year. So every time we go somewhere I have my camera and I just take pictures of what they’re doing, and I thought, ehm, you know, Mum’s getting old, be really good for William and… William and his sister to have, ehm, memories of being at Mum’s. And my Dad passed away in February that year so that was really the first time we’d been back since Dad had passed away, and we were going to go visit Dad’s grave and they were drawing some pictures to put on his grave, they were sending messages to Opa and things like that. And I just thought, I want to just take some pictures of that.”

This is very interesting. I would have expected the foster mother to start by saying something like: "Every time I look at that photo I’m reminded of how much I miss William, how much I love him." Instead, she starts by explaining why she took photos of him that morning. As if she feels a need for justification. Also: why does she immediately say she took three photos? Is it because she clings to the last three photos of her missing son on a daily basis? Or did she actually make more photos (three is the liar’s number)? If that is the case, why would she hold those back? Do they hold a clue as to what happened to William?

In one of my previous comments I suggested that the foster mother may have taken a photo of William in the climbing three and that this may have led to his death (e.g.: she didn’t hold him because she took a photo, he jumped off, fell on this head and died). In the above quote the foster mother clearly and repeatedly links taking pictures of William to the concepts of “passing away” and “grave” (of her late father). See the words highlighted in bold. She also says the children were “sending messages”. I wonder: is she herself trying to send us a message between the lines? I.e.: did her taking photos of William lead to William passing away and the family visiting his grave?

I also noted the repeated stutter on “I”. The stutter is not in the transcript (that I linked to in one of my earlier comments). However, I listened to the actual interview on youtube (see here -> the quote starts at 12:00) and she clearly stutters. I think this means that the question about William’s photo is sensitive to her.

Furthermore, as in so many of her other statements the foster mother repeatedly uses “just” here:
“I just take pictures of what they’re doing”.
“I just thought, I want to just take some pictures of that.”
It’s as if she is saying: “Move along guys, I just took pictures, nothing else to see here.” It makes me think there’s more to it.

It’s worth reading / listening to the foster mother’s entire answer to the “photo question”. There seem to be many clues.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

I remember
Green
Everything was so green.

Anonymous said...

How why who was he to me? Who was I to him?

Anonymous said...

I felt his sadness when he walked away.

Anonymous said...

One more comment on the “photo question”:

At one point in her answer the foster mother says:
”And I look at that picture and I just think, minutes, minutes, and our world has changed.”

When I read that comment I thought: “”Minutes, minutes”? What is she talking about. I thought William disappeared in an instant”. An instant is not minutes. Yet she clearly says her world changed in minutes. Why? Did it take minutes for William to die? Or did she mean that William disappeared minutes after she took the picture of him on the patio? In the latter case the time between the foster mother taking the patio picture and William disappearing was very short. She may very well still have been taking pictures of William (at another location) when he “disappeared”. Also: there's the word "just" again. She's thinking something else when looking at the patio photo.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

I spoke for myself I responded to Peter's comment about a comment and said that I appreciate that type of comment as well. Someone asked what I meant and I clarified. I was speaking for me, answering a question to me. Funny you are trying to shut me down because you don't like my opinion so who is egotistical and rude? How did I try to shut someone down?

Anonymous said...

OT: Karlie Guse

I’m on here to share more info. I just spoke to the sergeant, and they are at a dead end.”

She may also be leaking something about location here: is Karlie somewhere at a dead end street (in the desert)?

“And, uh, let's bring Karlie home (…)”

Why does Karlie have to be brought home? Can she not come home by herself? Why not?

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Anonymous (April 8, 2019 at 6:38 AM): I'm not entirely sure but I think Unknown/Jo's comment was directed at a different Anonymous (namely: April 7, 2019 at 5:18 PM) and not at you. Thanks again for your explanation. I found it clear and respectful.

Autumn

John said...

Given the amount of times she uses the word "just" leads me to believe it maybe a speech habit. Similar to when people say "you know" a lot at the end of sentences.

It would be interesting to note where and when it ("just") crops up in her statements and if the same topics elicit the use of "just", or is it "just" random?

frommindtomatter said...

OT Melissa Guese – Direct lie told.

I was searching for information on Karlie Guse case and came across the video which Leigh had transcribed. I downloaded it and played it back in windows media classic as it has the ability to move a video frame by frame which is good for looking at micro expressions. I wanted to see how her body language stacked up against her statement and the analysis we have done here on it.

At 3m 16s in the video we see her make the below statement:

”And then we went back to bed and I spent the whole night with her. I mean, I was awake and then I’d doze off... and she's just there, she was just hanging out. [She was awake]”

This is a very good example on the use of the word just and also on how telling a direct lie can cause leaks in spoken word or body language. A liar avoids a direct lie as it causes stress and could also lead to words spoken which may later be proved untrue. So the liar is vague and minimises details when necessary. I believe Melissa up until we get to the use of the word “just” (twice). She tells us “she was just there” which minimises in terms of location. She does not say “she was lying next to me” or something similar but uses the word “there” which leaves the listener having to make an assumption about where there is. Next we have “she was just hanging out”, again we see the insertion of the word “just” which is not needed.

Finally we have the direct lie and the leakage. What is interesting is that SA would not detect this lie although it detects so much more than body language does, this one would have slipped by. Melissa says “She was awake” which sounds like a good statement but if we look at the video we see that she leaks her lie through her body language.

At 3m 16s when she makes the statement we find her words say one thing but her head another. If you watch the video you will see this clearly. You might have to click back a few times to pick it up, but you will see it. While telling us the positive statement “she was awake” her head shakes in disagreement with her words. Deception indicated.

Melissa wasn`t lying when she said that “she was just there” physically Karlies’ body was there, but unfortunately she was not alive at that time. Whatever drugs she had taken or been given had killed her. I feel sorry for Melissa because she has to live with the guilt of not doing something to help her. She alludes to this early in her statement when she says “I wasn't going to take her to the hospital. She's high on marijuana... why would I, I just, it didn't cross my mind.” She now realises that taking her to the hospital could have saved her and it is playing on her mind.

There are a number of telling body language signs in the video and also I noticed at sensitive areas in her story the speed of her speech greatly increases as she wants to get through them as quickly as possible.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

OT Melissa Guse – I missed this on my previous post.

I wanted to add one more thing I missed.

“and she's just there, she was just hanging out. [She was awake]”

If she was there hanging out why would we need to be told “she was awake”. If someone is there hanging out we automatically draw the conclusion they are awake. By adding in what would be obvious she draws attention to the fact she has a need to convince.

We could also look at the order of the statement. We expect to be told “she was awake” first in the order? We expect “she was awake and hanging out”.

So I may have to eat my words regarding SA not detecting her deception on those words to some degree (wouldn’t be the first time:). The SA with the added layer of body language does give the definite proof of deception on her statement.

Adrian.

Leigh said...

OT-Karlie Guse

Adrian,

Thank you for looking up and watching that video. When I first watched it, I had to transcribe it because something was not making sense. When her words “came alive” in the transcription, it became clearer what happened that night. I need to watch it now and pay close attention to body language.
"and she's just there, she was just hanging out. [She was awake]." The additional unnecessary information of [she was awake] is very sensitive to Melissa. I wonder if she is recalling that Karlie appeared awake because she died with her eyes open?
I have also transcribed Melissa’s first FB Live statement from the day Karlie disappeared and her sensitivity to all things car related continues. I will post that too (it’s much shorter) and would like to hear your (and anyone else’s) thoughts. In analyzing the two statements, her first one (October 13, 2018) flags for deception much easier.
This brings me to a question. I realize that when a person says “left” in regards to leaving a location, it is flagged for sensitivity. Does that also apply to its present tense “leave” or “leaves”?

Leigh

Leigh said...

OT-Karlie Guse
Melissa Guse Facebook Live #1 October 13, 2018 @4:30 p.m.

(Breathless, gulping water) My name is Melissa Guse, um, if you’re gunna to watch this video, please do not have the kids around. Karlie Lain Guse is missing...still. She’s been missing since, breathe, (gulps water)(long sigh). She’s been missing since 6:30 am. The last time that I spoke to her was 5:30. She didn’t take her cell phone. We’re coming up on ten hours (breathless) and now’s the part where I’m saying I have to do something because we’ve had CHP fly over, we’ve had the, Inyo County, Inyo Mono County Sher-, um, Sheriffs flying over, er, ah. Bishop PD, CHP flying over...they had their copter today. Thank You to CHP-love you! And, um, we are going to potentially have the helicopter do the search over a very large area so far, all the way around us, all the way down to, like, Laws. And, they’re amazing, and, um, several Mono County Sheriffs and, I see all your faces popping up and it makes me want to cry, I love you guys! And, I’m putting this out there because, um, it's going on 10 hours that she’s been missing and I want to put this on blast because I don’t think she’s out in the desert. I think that she could’ve been abducted or taken because we do live by a highway, and, it happens and I’m bein’ real (phone ringing). And, I just want to let everybody know (looks at phone). Alicia, you’re calling me? Are you watching the video? She’s not watching the video (shakes head). That’s ok. I want to put this on blast because I don’t know what to do to consider her a missing person. Um, you can’t do an Amber Alert because she didn’t leave in a car and I don’t have a physical description of a vehicle. She is (holding picture up) 5 foot 7...hold on...let’s do this good...wait, there she is. She’s 5 foot 7, about 115 pounds. She has blue eyes and the cutest little nose and a great smile and her hair goes all the way down past her, like, to her belly let’s say-mid waist. And, this is last year’s picture (holding picture up) so she, she’s a little bit different, but, not much she’s still like adorably cute. She doesn’t wear makeup and everything. She left in her jeans, um, and a t shirt, so (breathless) I’m putting out there and, just go for it, everybody help me out here. I love you all, everybody please watch. Share your friends, share my friends, share everybody’s but just share the sh*t out of it...alright? Thankyou.

John said...

We’re coming up on ten hours (breathless) and now’s the part where I’m saying I have to do something because we’ve had CHP fly over, we’ve had the, Inyo County, Inyo Mono County Sher-, um, Sheriffs flying over, er, ah. Bishop PD, CHP flying over...they had their copter today. Thank You to CHP-love you! And, um, we are going to potentially have the helicopter do the search over a very large area so far, all the way around us, all the way down to, like, Laws. And, they’re amazing, and, um, several Mono County Sheriffs and, I see all your faces popping up and it makes me want to cry, I love you guys! And, I’m putting this out there because, um, it's going on 10 hours that she’s been missing and I want to put this on blast because I don’t think she’s out in the desert.

Ingratiation (Vernal kunz)

Praising SAR LE for not finding her (Vernal kunz)

I don’t think she’s out in the desert.

Hmm??

frommindtomatter said...

OT-Karlie Guse

Melissa Guse Facebook Live #1 October 13, 2018 @4:30 p.m.

“She didn’t take her cell phone” – Said in the negative as opposed to “her cell phones still here”. If the cell phone was with Karlie then it could possibly be tracked by law enforcement. So the phone being at the house makes her untraceable. She wouldn’t be making any calls or texts etc.. (not that she could of).

“and now’s the [part] where [I’m saying] I have to” – Very strange reference. It is not related to time as we would expect something like “now’s the time”. The part in the story perhaps ;)

“I [think] that she [could’ve] been abducted or taken [because] we [do] live by a highway, and, it happens and I’m bein’ [real]” – She makes a weak statement and validates it with an even weaker reason. She puts the extra word in “do” when it is not needed, “[because] we [do] live by a highway”. It is there to convince. The second reason she gives for abduction is “it happens” which I don’t think we can class as reason, a lot of things happen right? She closes with “I’m bein’ “real” which is like throwing the kitchen sink at the job of convincing everyone. It is the same as saying “I kid you not”.

If she had told us she thought abduction was a possibility because Karlie hasn’t been found in the desert so we need to explore other options, I would have been quite happy to buy it. Instead we are being given the hard sell. Once the lying starts it can never stop. I think if she had been interviewed by a friendly detective she could have been coaxed to confess to what had gone on. In the original video she does show some genuine emotions and remorse and I think she would have broken down and told everything to get the heavy burden off her. We have to ask what was so big a problem in reporting karlies death to the Police, were there signs of abuse or were they just scared of all the negative attention they were going to get for not preventing it.

Adrian.

Leigh said...

-Order of importance...1. Melissa (herself) 2. Other people’s kids that may watch 3. Karlie
-Lack of proper social introduction. Who is Karlie to Melissa?
-“She’s been missing since 6:30 am. The last time that I [spoke] to her was 5:30.” If you are able to speak to someone, can’t you see them as well? It would make more sense for Melissa to say the “last time she saw her.”
-”She didn’t take her cell phone.” I’ve heard Peter say that when someone mentions a phone in a statement, it is sensitive and places them at the scene. Also reinforces that Karlie is not able to communicate.
-”Thank You to CHP-love you!” Ingratiation to law enforcement for not finding her stepdaughter
-Love for law enforcement expressed. Love for her Facebook friends expressed. Love and concern for Karlie? Not expressed.
- “I don’t think she’s out in the desert.” Why would she not be out in the desert if she wandered off from her home which is situated at the edge of the desert? Does Melissa have knowledge otherwise?
-” I think that she could’ve been abducted or taken because we do live by a highway, and, it happens…” This sounds like Chris Watts’ interview on television. “I don’t want to [put anything out there], but there are no cameras in the backyard and they could’ve left the house that way.” Narrative building.
-” I don’t know what to do to consider her a missing person.” When Melissa made this statement, law enforcement was actively searching the area. They already considered her a missing person. Was Melissa wondering out loud if her narrative was plausible?
-[You] is distancing language. [Can’t, didn’t, and don’t] are all in the negative. Was there a change in reality? “She didn’t leave in a [car]” and then “I don’t have a physical description of a [vehicle]”. A [car] is a known entity and a [vehicle] is an unknown entity. Did Karlie leave in a [truck]?
-”She [left] in her jeans, um, and a t-shirt…” Melissa states that Karlie [left]. Melissa’s brain doesn’t want to focus on where Karlie went after she [left]. This indicates missing information. She may be deceptively withholding Karlie’s location and what happened at the house.

Deception Indicated

Adrian, I have wondered the same thing. Why hide an accidental death? Why not seek medical attention when Karlie was acting so "paranoid"? I do have suspicions about the night before. This story has been all over the news and no story is presented the same way, yet they all have little bits that can be pieced together. According to Melissa, Zac was intoxicated the evening of Oct 12th and that's why she went to pick her up. When she was driving to get her, she saw Karlie running down the street due to the light of the cell phone moving in her hand. Melissa said on Dr. Phil, that Karlie was as "white as a ghost". She didn't want to get in the front seat so she got in the backseat behind her. Melissa told Karlie's mom that Karlie grabbed the steering wheel when she was in the car. Her mom also said that Melissa's car was in the shop two days after the disappearance with front end damage. The natural question is did Melissa hit Karlie with her car? The confusion Karlie exhibited may have been due to a head injury. After listening to Melissa and Zac on Nancy Grace, I wondered if Melissa was intoxicated as well when she went to get Karlie. If you have time, listen to that episode because they both sound intoxicated on the air and Nancy Grace is frustrated with the interview. If Melissa hit Karlie while intoxicated-that may have caused the cover-up. Whatever happened, Melissa is not giving a truthful account.
https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/mrw-productions-llc/crime-stories-with-nancy-grace/e/56896753

Leigh said...

OT-Karlie Guse

I copied the wrong address for the Nancy Grace interview with Melissa and Zac Guse. Here is the link https://www.iheart.com/podcast/268-crime-stories-with-nancy-g-27910486/episode/karlie-guses-step-mom-dad-30063461/

The NG interview I copied in the previous post was with Karlie's biological mom, Lindsay.

Leigh

Anonymous said...

OT: Karlie Guse

Does anybody know more about the three neighbors that saw Karlie walking towards Highway 6 on the morning that she went missing? Have those sightings been discredited?

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

OT: Karlie Guse

Autumn, I would like to know more about the witnesses as well. I am just listening to the Nancy grace interview Leigh linked to.The parents were not very helpful at all. Melissa wasn't as talkative as she was in her FB videos. The parents had an opportunity to get information out about karlie on air and they didn't want to take it.

Adrian.

Habundia said...

Just – just happened, just arrived etc.. - Here it is used to mean recently

"Just – I just touched it and it broke - Here it is used to minimise actions, “that’s all I did” “I only touched it”

Just – this one is just £100 – It is being compared to something which costs more

Just - This is just what I mean - Exactly or precisely

Just - The weather is just glorious - Actually; really; positively

Just - The arrow just missed the mark - By a narrow margin; barely"

Thanks Adrian just ;-) what I needed
I've been confused on this word for I didn't seem to understand Peter's explanation of comparison vs other contex when "just" is used.
You gave me some other inside of this word, which make sense. So thank you for that!

William Tyrell
The foster mother tells us she's talking with her mother and her daughter, outside on the patio. What has the 'foster grandmother' told about the situation? What is her story of events?
Why didn't she call her husband? Or didn't she want to disturb him, 'because he had a meeting'? (Has it been verified the husband had a meeting?)
The foster mother says she took 'three' pictures. If one was Wlliam in his spiderman outfit, what did the other two show?

Her kind of pushing the child to climb a tree.
The mothers I have known and seen rather don't see their 3 year olds climb in anything, let alone a tree. I can see a father encouraging this, but the mothers I've known get heart attacks when their kids do dangerous things, like climbing a tree. Scared they fall out and will hurt themselves or worse.

"My other daughter", seemed odd to me too when finding out she only mentions William and his sister. Could it be she'd referred to a child she foster cared before but wasnt living there anymore or wasnt with them at grandmother home?

OT Karlie Guse
It seems like a statement full of information (or missing information).
Her sentences are odd and kind of "rambling", but not to a point 'not knowing what she says'.

That's what I don't get, why would you not want to bring your missing child case to the media? If it raises the chance of getting/finding your child back, who cares what is needed? I wouldn't as long it could bring my child back safe I would do anything, my appearance would not matter if I wasnt involved in the disappearance of my child.



Anonymous said...

Oh thank you. I missed that comment . I'm glad you understood where I was coming from. Thank you for your kindness

Amber said...

I mainly just observe because you guys are all so advanced with your crime-solving. I just want to say that I am amazed by how you sleuths have analyzed the word just. It's amazing. I feel like it is all becoming clearer now...The mother JUST put him into a tree and oops he fell and she heard one sharp scream and then nothing. Why would bad Mommy do that? Did she JUST make him have an accident?

And of course, he would not have had Little Tara while "climbing" the tree.

Mother has only Little Tara now to remind her of William while she mouths disgusting lies and slobbers with fake grief.

Anonymous said...

OT: Karlie Guse

"We’re coming up on ten hours (breathless) and now’s the part where I’m saying I have to do something because we’ve had CHP fly over, we’ve had the, Inyo County, Inyo Mono County Sher-, um, Sheriffs flying over, er, ah. Bishop PD, CHP flying over...they had their copter today." '

Kind of strange that the fact that authorities had been "flying over" gave the stepmother the urge to say "I have to do something". I think most people would think the opposite, like: "Okay, I can sit back for a moment because the authorities are doing everything they can to find her. It's in good hands." Maybe she meant to say: the authorities did all this effort and still Karlie is not found, so now I take matters into my own hands. That's not what she said however: it’s all these authorities flying and having flown over that make her (say she) want(s) to act. In fact, “flying over” seems sensitive to her because she repeats it three times. Why? Did the authorities fly over Karlie’s location and did that make her nervous? Like Adrian, I think the following wording is very unusual: “now’s the part where I’m saying I have to do something”. Indeed it’s as if she features in play. Her part (role) is to say she has to do something. To say you have to do something is different from actually doing it. It’s window-dressing.

Immediately after this quote, the stepmother ingratiates herself with the authorities. In a way that seems rather over the top (“Thank You to CHP-love you”, “they’re amazing”). Why this outpouring of love? After all, the authorities didn’t find Karlie. Although I don’t think it’s suspicious per se to be thankful to authorities in such a situation, this feels different: it’s almost as if she’s relieved because they didn’t find Karlie (I watched the video and that’s also what her body language exuded i.m.o.).

The stepmother then goes on to say:

“And, I’m putting this out there because, um, it's going on 10 hours that she’s been missing and I want to put this on blast because I don’t think she’s out in the desert.”

Others already commented on this. Why does she think Karlie is not in the desert? It’s as if she is steering the attention away from the desert. That’s odd. I would want all scenario’s – including Karlie being in the desert – thoroughly researched in such a situation. Immediately preceding her suggestion that Karlie is not in the desert, the stepmother says: “I want to put this on blast”, as if to emphasize her message (“Listen up: Karlie is not in the desert!”). What does she have to gain by third parties believing Karlie is not in the desert? Also: the stepmother uses the expression
“put this on blast” twice in this video. She also used it in the Dr. Phil interview. I think she may subconsciously do so to announce important leaks of what happened, see the bold text in the following statements:
I want to put this on blast because I don’t think she’s out in the desert.”
I want to put this on blast because I don’t know what to do to consider her a missing person.”
At the same time, “blast” might be a detail in itself -> ”What if she fell and hit her head?”

The stepmother repeatedly says with regard to Karlie’s possible location: “out in the desert”. She’s not simply “in the desert” or “somewhere in the desert”, she’s “out in the desert”. "Out" as in "dead"? I know being somewhere “out there” is a normal expression in English but I wanted to mention this for completeness sake.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

OT: Karlie Guse

“Um, you can’t do an Amber Alert because she didn’t leave in a car and I don’t have a physical description of a vehicle.”

If Karlie didn’t leave in a car, why did the stepmother have to add that she didn’t have a physical description of a vehicle (is that standard “Amber Alert” language?). If she says she doesn’t have a physical description of a vehicle, that might imply that there was a vehicle -> she just doesn’t (or won’t) give a physical description. Also: why does she add “physical”? What other description of a vehicle is there than a physical one (again: is that standard “Amber Alert” language?). Maybe Karlie didn’t leave in a car but her dead body may have -> in that case Karlie’s “physical” remains left in a car/vehicle.

I know there are sightings by three witnesses. However, I think the stepmother knows what happened to Karlie.

Autumn

Anonymous said...

”I don’t know what to do to consider her a missing person.”

This statement implies the stepmother doesn't consider Karlie a missing person.

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

Autumns’ last post led me here.

“I want to put this on blast because I [don’t know] what to do to consider her a missing person. Um, [you] [can’t do] an Amber Alert [because] [she didn’t] leave in a car and I [don’t have] a physical description of a [vehicle].”
There’s quite a bit of information above.

We see a lot of commitment with her use of pronouns four times. If you notice she uses the pronoun “I” three times but changes to “you” for one of her statements. This means she distances herself from her words by generalising it instead of making personal commitment to it. If we look at that sentence we find she won’t commit to the fact that “she didn’t leave in a car” (Karlie). That stands out because by her making commitment to her other statements with “I” her sudden change to “you” becomes noticeable. This suggests that karlie did leave in a car and Melissa knows it.

If you read the sentence back putting “I” instead of “you” it all makes sense. Go back to reading it with “you” as the pronoun and the deception becomes obvious.

We also see a change in language with her use of the word “car” changing to “vehicle”. This isn’t conclusive but it does show a change in her perception. It may be genuine but it may not be.

We also have the problem with the overwhelming amount negative language. We accept some negative language has to be used in communication but when there are other options we question why they are not used.

Autumn pointed out the statement “because I don’t know what to do to consider her a missing person”. We have to take peoples words literally. She commits to it with the pronoun “I”, uses negative language and then tells us literally what is on her mind.

Adrian.

Habundia said...

https://www.atelevisao.com/cabo/maddie-policia-tera-oferecido-liberdade-gerry-kate-confessasse-crime/amp/

Translation tells me police want Kate to admit she did something to Maddie and want her to tell where she hid Maddie, then Gerry will be set free and she will only get 2 years in prison.

That's how European countries let criminals on the streets, they give them pathetic sentences and half the time is being reduced because of 'good behaviour', I feel ashame to be European when it comes to this.
European courthouses don't give victims justice, they have compassion with criminals.

A Belgian judge let two twin boys free because he wasnt able to determine which of the two was the one who hit the bouncer while the other tried to calm his brother. So therefore both didn't get any sentence, this is normal ways for courthouses here in Europe. Its horrible.

Habundia said...

https://www.publimetro.cl/cl/metroamp/social/2019/04/09/madeleine-mccann-maddie-kate-netflix-jim-gamble-algarve-libro-praia-da-luz.html

Another link

John said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John said...

OT: Karlie Guse

“And, I’m putting this out there because, um, it's going on 10 hours that she’s been missing and I want to put this on blast because I don’t think she’s out in the desert.”

Wasn't it Casey, Cindy or George Anthony who indicated in a statements that Caylee Anthony would not be found in the woods, (or words to that effect) and yet she was.?

Leigh said...

OT Karlie Guse

The witnesses are an interesting aspect of this case. The most reliable neighbor (I've read that he is retired law enforcement) was in his hot tub room and reported seeing a female in a white shirt and grey sweatpants walking past his house at 0630 holding a paper up to the sky. Sunrise on Oct 13th was at 0700. Melissa initially said Karlie never wore sweatpants and I believe her. If you look at Melissa's first FB post she's wearing a white shirt. In a previous interview Melissa stated she was wearing grey sweatpants on Oct 13th. I tend to think witnesses saw Melissa that morning. The family had moved into the neighborhood within the previous 2 months and they didn't know many people in the area. When Melissa and Zac were on Dr Phil, they refused to give their address and any information about the witnesses to the shows producers. Dr Phil questioned them about that and they said it's because they've been getting death threats and didn't want their address published. Dr Phil then said, have you ever seen me publish a guest's address? Melissa and Zac denied being asked about witness information and Dr Phil called them on that lie. Zac said he didn't feel comfortable involving anyone else without their permission. Their behavior is unexpected for parents of a missing child.
When Melissa was asked if she harmed Karlie she replied, “Are you kidding me? I'm not a murderer! “ That's not a reliable denial. Zac said “I swear to God” and “honest to God” when talking about Karlie.
The morning Karlie disappeared, they took the younger boys (ages 8 and 10) to a relative’s house at 5:30 a.m. Lindsay (Karlie's mom) said that when Zac called to inform her about Karlie, he said she is “gone” and “what do you need to worry about? At least you have an alibi! “ A few days later, Melissa and Lindsay were looking at a map of the search grid. According to Lindsay, Melissa studied the map and said “they're looking in the wrong place. “

Leigh

Leigh said...

I thought the same thing "... I don't know what to do to consider her a missing person."
Melissa is asking herself (and her audience) , how do I make this narrative plausible?
The entire situation is sad. Law enforcement believes Melissa and Zac's story. When a child over the age of 14 disappears without obvious signs of foul play, apathy settles in quickly with law enforcement. When there is suspected drug use, the missing child is further marginalized.

Anonymous said...

Leigh, thanks for this info. So many things don't add up in the "Karlie ran away" scenario.

Melissa herself seems to call into question the “jacuzzi” neighbor’s sighting in the following sentence: "And then, for the neighbor to say he saw her at 6:30 in the morning, is what he told me, but he's older." Why else would she say “but he’s older”? Does she mean his eyesight may not have been good enough to determine who he saw? She also doesn’t say: the neighbor saw Karlie. She merely mentions that the neighbor says he saw her.

If it was Melissa instead of Karlie, I wonder what she was doing holding a paper up in the air (maybe it was a missing poster or something -> but I also read that the neighbor saw her writing something down).

Autumn

Anonymous said...

John, that’s right. I believe Casey Anthony said something like “I feel she’s really close”.

Another interesting thing in terms of location is that Karlie’s father (Zachary) reportedly said he found one or more footprints of her in the White Mountains. The White Mountain Peak is situated north/east of their home town Chalfant. I don’t find it credible that Zachary found Karlie’s footprints in that vast, rugged terrain. So if Zachary indeed said that, maybe he wanted to steer attention in a direction opposite from Karlie’s actual location? In that case, her actual location may be somewhere south of her home town Chalfant. Bodies are often hidden in a place familiar to the person who does the hiding and Karlie’s parents previously lived south of Chalfant (in a town named Bishop). So the surroundings of Bishop would be familiar territory for them. Maybe he mentioned “White Mountains” because it’s the opposite of her real location? To the south of Bishop are the Black Mountains (Black is the opposite of White). The most southern peak of the White Mountains is also named Black Mountain. Maybe that's where Karlie is (in every lie there is some truth). Anyway, this is all pure speculation. Interestingly Melissa mentions a town to the south of Chalfant in the shorter video, see the following quote:

”And, um, we are going to potentially have the helicopter do the search over a very large area so far, all the way around us, all the way down to, like, Laws. And, they’re amazing, and, um, several Mono County Sheriffs and, I see all your faces popping up and it makes me want to cry, I love you guys! And, I’m putting this out there because, um, it's going on 10 hours that she’s been missing and I want to put this on blast because I don’t think she’s out in the desert. I think that she could’ve been abducted or taken because we do live by a highway, and, it happens and I’m bein’ real

Autumn

Anonymous said...


From Casey Anthony jailhouse tapes (I'm not sure she ever said anything about woods, but she said she could feel Caylee was not far -> she was found in a wooded area less than a mile from the Anthony house):

CINDY ANTHONY: But do you think after this long she`d still be local?

CASEY ANTHONY: There`s a possibility.

CINDY ANTHONY: What`s your gut telling you right now?

(CROSSTALK)

CASEY ANTHONY: My gut is telling me that she`s OK.

CINDY ANTHONY: OK. And your gut tell you that she`s close or some -- she`s hiding?

CASEY ANTHONY: She`s not far. I know in my heart she`s not far. I can feel it.

CINDY ANTHONY: Jose said that you said that everything would make sense once we found Caylee.

CASEY ANTHONY: Well, yes. Once you have someone that you can talk to. That you can get a real explanation from that knows where she`s been. That it`s going to have to make sense at that point. Once we get Caylee, everything else will figure itself out.

CINDY ANTHONY: Is there any --

CASEY ANTHONY: Mom, we`re not talking -- I can`t.

CINDY ANTHONY: No. No. No. No, I know. I`m sorry. I`m just wondering if there`s anything else you want me to tell Caylee because everybody -- you know I always get an opportunity to speak to the media. Is there anything you want me to say to Caylee, any new thoughts or anything.

CASEY ANTHONY: Just tell her that I love her and that I miss her. I mean that`s -- that`s the constant. I`m being as strong as I can considering the situation. It`s just hard. It`s just very hard.

CINDY ANTHONY: I know.

CASEY ANTHONY: God, I just want to go home. Every day I wake up, I`m just hoping and praying that I get to go home. I just want to be with you guys. I just want to help find her. Because I feel a little hopeless. I feel a little helpless here. I mean honestly, not really hopeless but more helpless because I can`t do anything from where I`m at.

Oh, god. My heart is aching. Because I just want to be back with our family. At least in my gut every day, stronger and stronger, I know we`re going to see Caylee. I know she`s coming home. I can feel it. I want you to know that.

Autumn

John said...

Thanks, Autumn

If memory serves i think it may have been Caseys dad who mentioned the woods. I dont recall the context unfortunately.

frommindtomatter said...

The following quote is from Peters excellent book Wise As a Serpent; Gentle As a Dove: Dealing With Deception (p. 109)

Cindy said to the press "George and I don't believe Caylees`s in the woods or anything"

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

Leigh said:

When Melissa was asked if she harmed Karlie she replied, “Are you kidding me? I'm not a murderer!” That's not a reliable denial.

Like you said it is not a reliable denial. What is interesting is that Melissa introduces the word “murderer”. Harm is a word which covers a wide range of injuries; harm can be mental or physical and it can be minor or fatal. Melissa by saying “murderer” introduces a type of harm which is connected to death.

If Karlie has run away (which I doubt) Melissa could of interpreted the question as an accusation that she slapped her or punished her which may of led to her running away. She could have even asked Dr Phil “What do you mean by harmed her” but it seems her mind automatically jumped straight to death as if the knowledge was already there. It points to Melissa knowing karlie is dead though I don’t think she was murdered.

Adrian.

John said...

Thanks, Adrian

Anonymous said...

Melissa reached out to Sean Hannity via Facebook on the day Karlie went missing, see below and here

"Dear Hannity,
My name is Melissa Guse and my husband is Zachary guse. We always enjoy watching your show every night I’m writing to you now and informing you of some news my daughter Karlie Guse went on a walk this morning and nwver [sic] returned. She was last seen at 6:30 a.m., today Saturday October 13th. We live in a small town in Bishop, California at the base of the mountains. We love our guns, land, rights, and freedom. But don’t love our lawbreakers so I’m writing to you for help to share this with your viewers. I know her and she wouldn’t leave for this long! Ever! It’s now 6:03pm almost 12 hours now. A missing person is only considered 24 to 48 hours. Maybe she’ll show up tomorrow, or in a week
or what if she never comes home? The world is cruel and the world is real it doesn’t matter where you live because you just never know. Thank you Sean Hannity
I hope this message reaches you.

Karlie Guse 16yrs old Blue eyes Long Dirty Blonde Hair
5 ft 7 her picture and a live video are posted to my Facebook page


- Why the ingratiation at the beginning? Is that more important than asking for help to find Karlie? Also: maybe a bit of a strange choice to address Hannity. At least, I have never seen him broadcast about missing persons, but maybe he publishes these sort of messages on social media?
- Why does Melissa say “my” daughter? Karlie was Zachary and Lindsay’s daughter in the first place.
- “(…) at the base of the mountains”? What is the added value of this? Who cares about a scenic description at such a moment. Or is this a clue of Karlie’s location?
- “We love our guns, land, rights, and freedom.” What is the relevancy of this in this context? ”Our” guns is mentioned first -> do Melissa and Zachary own guns? Was a gun fired that night? Did Karlie, in her psychotic state, fire a gun? Is that why Melissa repeatedly says “blast”?
- “But don’t love our lawbreakers”. It’s strange enough that she introduces “lawbreakers” here but then to call them “our”? Did Melissa and Zachary break the law? How so?
- Also: could “lawbreakers” be a leak regarding Karlie’s location? Melissa mentioned that they would “potentially” have the helicopter do the search “all the way down to, like, Laws”. Laws is a town situated south of Chalfant at the base of the mountains. Did Melissa and Zachary take a break at Laws (Lawbreakers) that day? Did they break or take a turn at Laws to hide Karlie’s body?
-“I know her and she wouldn’t leave for this long! Ever!” -> Is this (i.e.: “ever”) some weird way of saying Karlie is never, ever coming back? Surely she would at one point in her life have left her parental home for longer than 12 hours.
-“A missing person is only considered (…)” -> Only considered missing? Not actually missing?
- “Maybe she’ll show up tomorrow, or in a week or what if she never comes home?” Something seems off about this sentence. I don’t know what exactly.
-“The world is cruel and the world is real” -> Is that what really happened? Something cruel?
- “it doesn’t matter where you live because you just never know.” -> Indeed: where Hannity lives doesn’t matter in this case and he will probably never know what happened. Does it matter where Melissa lives though? And does she know what cruelty happened?

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Another facebook message by Melissa ( “Moms” refers to herself):

“Moms gut instinct is that she is passed out in the foothills or she was taken by someobevoff [sic] hwy 6 most likely going north.”

Autumn

Habundia said...

OT Madeleine McCann documentary (5 parts)

https://youtu.be/lhACS6ck-Dw (part 1)
https://youtu.be/fRQQWmpiO3s (part 2)
https://youtu.be/dXtBWNCFt7U (part 3)
https://youtu.be/na4aBr5PTYY (part 4)
https://youtu.be/EpaiVpHOFKg (part 5)

frommindtomatter said...

Melissa Guse – Sean hannity

The beginning of the message looks ok in my opinion. We have a social introduction which is expected. There is ingratiation, but it is there as an attempt to butter the recipient up. I want you to do something for me so I am going to say nice things about you and try to build rapport with you. Hannity delivers news and Melissa says I am “informing you of some news” so she is saying I`ve got news for you, she wants him to put it out.

Things begin to get strange when she says:

“my daughter Karlie Guse [went on a walk] this morning and [nwver] [sic] returned”

We see very soft tone language to describe a child who was paranoid, scared and high on drugs around the time of her disappearance. Saying she went on a walk paints totally the wrong picture of what happened and minimises the situation. So Melissa is being deceptive in her description. I think it would be fair to say though that most people would realise that if they said “my daughter was high on drugs, acting weird and vanished” they may not meet with a sympathetic response.

We have the misspelled “nwver” (never) when “hasn’t” or “didn’t” could have been used. Never is a reference to time and is weak and vague.

Never - at no time in the past or future; not ever.

We could consider its misspelling accidental but it could also be a subconsciously guided mistake. It is the only misspelling in the document which is interesting and as most people check through what they have written before posting it stands out.

What strikes me most about the message is that Melissa is suggesting a crime (lawbreakers) has been committed and that Karlie may never come home “what if she never comes home?”. This seems premature considering Karlie has only been missing 12 hours. I would expect the focus on we need to find her she is missing. Please can you put her face out there in the hope someone will provide information about her whereabouts.

She only uses “Karlie” once and that is as social introduction “my daughter Karlie Guse” all other references are “her” or “she”.

“I know [her] and she wouldn’t leave for this long! Ever!” – I would expect I know “Karlie”. I would also expect “stay out” or something similar instead of “leave”.

“The world is cruel and the world is real it doesn’t matter where you live because you just never know.” – I better not give an opinion on this or I will probably get my post pulled [but] it sounds like something from Shakespeare if you know what I mean.

Adrian.

Habundia said...

I've been looking at part one of the links I send.
I find it kind of hilarious (though this probably isn't the right word for the circumstances, by lack of other description)

Kate shows us the last time she went check on the kids.
She tells how she was standing outside the door when she noticed it to be open more then they had left it (if they went on turn to check on the kids, how would she know the door wasnt left further open then she maybe had left it open when she went to check before?)
She then tells and shows how, when she want to "close the door" it would slam closed. (A loud bang is heard) Then she tells us she peeked back in but wasn't sure if she saw Maddie or if it was the bedding. She didn't want to "turn on the light", because she didn't want to wake the kids! Then she saw the curtains go "whooeshj"

The slamming of the door would have wake up the kids instantly. At least I would think so.

Anonymous said...

Interesting quote from Mike Pence:

“He said some things that are critical of my Christian faith and about me personally. And he knows better. He knows me,” said Pence, who served as governor of Indiana when Buttigieg came out as gay during his reelection campaign for mayor.

Does that sound like a threat? Should Buttigieg "know better" than to criticize Pence, or else?

Anonymous said...

^^ https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/10/mike-pence-says-pete-buttigieg-knows-better-after-criticism.html

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
Interesting quote from Mike Pence:

“He said some things that are critical of my Christian faith and about me personally. And he knows better. He knows me,” said Pence, who served as governor of Indiana when Buttigieg came out as gay during his reelection campaign for mayor.

Does that sound like a threat? Should Buttigieg "know better" than to criticize Pence, or else?




If you want it to.

Peter

frommindtomatter said...

The language of William Tyrells father:

P: So you raised the alarm immediately?

M: Well I raced around for a bit, then went down and got the neighbour to help, then D came back, because he had a meeting.

D: I had a meeting and [I arrived back] and there was a [bit] of confusion if William was with me, because he’s always looking out for me and my car, and [I was on my way back], and [I’d arrived back] [and been asked] if William was with me and I said no, then I [immediately got out of the car] and started [looking around], and within 5 minutes we raised the alarm and I [think] I ran the perimeter of the whole street within about 10-15 minutes, and I mean, he [wouldn’t], he’s [not] a wanderer, he [wouldn’t] [even] cross the street by himself. He [wouldn’t] go far.

The fathers answer has problems with the order of events we see he says he “I arrived back”, “I was on my way back” and then “I`d arrived back”.

“I’d arrived back [and been asked] if William was with me” – This is very vague information. From a recall we expect something like “my wife ran over and asked if I had seen William”. Was she screaming, did she look worried etc.., those are things which should be etched in his memory.

“then I [immediately got out of the car]” – He feels a need to tell us he got out of his car immediately which is not necessary, in fact to tell us he got out of his car at all is not necessary. He cannot give a simple detail like who asked him if William was with him but is happy to go into detail about getting out of his car.

“and started [looking around]” – He was looking around, no mention of searching for William, no purpose in his words.

“I [think] I ran the perimeter of the whole street within about 10-15 minutes” – What I find interesting with this sentence is that he seems to want to listener to know his actions were completed “within” a certain amount of time. He uses the same format when he says “and [within] 5 minutes we raised the alarm”. His language shows he has a need to convince that things were done “within” a certain amount of time. Most people would say “about” or “around” when giving a time reference as an approximation, but the father’s use of the word “within” stands out. It’s like someone saying “I had a small piece of cake” instead of simply saying “I had a piece of cake”, by adding the word small they show that they want you to know that information. It might not be important to the listener what size the piece of cake was, but to them it is. The father shows sensitivity to the timing of his actions.

"I mean, he [wouldn’t], he’s [not] a wanderer, he [wouldn’t] [even] cross the street by himself. He [wouldn’t] go far."

His words are riddled with negative language. He tells us that William wouldn't cross the street by himself but adds the extra word "even" to his statement which suggests he is downplaying the situation. It`s a strange thing to say that a three year old wouldn't "even" cross the street by himself". I would not even entertain the idea of it.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

There is a documentary on YouTube called “AUSTRALIAN BIGFOOT: The Vanishing of William Tyrell 2017”. I watched the first few minutes till I realised that this documentary was based upon William being taken by Bigfoot. (I know I should have guessed by the title) But the first couple of minutes of the film contain some of the 911 call and then it cuts to the mother (only shows her mouth area to keep her anonymous) talking. This is what she says as she recalls William disappearance:

“I couldn’t see him, I couldn’t hear him, it was the world, you, it’s like, the world just came to a [screaming halt], I just, there was no wind, there was no birds, there was no movement there was nothing.”

Adrian.

John said...

“I couldn’t see him, I couldn’t hear him, it was the world, you, it’s like, the world just came to a [screaming halt], I just, there was no wind, there was no birds, there was no movement there was nothing.”

She tells us what she "couldn't see" and what she "couldn't hear". The rule of the negative

there was no wind, there was no birds, there was no movement there was nothing.”

This is story telling. What she gong to say next? It was a dark storm night....

Anonymous said...

Karlie Guse's stepmom also talked about "the world" ("The world is cruel and the world is real [etc.]") Is there sth that makes people mention "the world" when they talk about the moment their child disappeared? In the case of William's foster mother: does the world seemingly stop turning when you can't immediately see/hear your child? Or is that sensation more likely to occur when you see your child dying before your eyes.

Adrian, at the beginning of this thread someone posted a link to a video of William's foster dad recreating his search for William. Did you see that? -> https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1889904/Video-Moments-William-Tyrrells-disappearance-described-father.html

The foster dad specifically mentioning getting out of the car and the foster mother saying "screaming halt" makes me wonder: was it a car accident? I didn't think so -> it's the foster mother who feels guilty/responsible.

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

Autumn I think you have nailed it.

I will have a look at that video now. Yeah “screaming halt” is an interesting choice of words that stands out to me too. She could have said many other things like the world just Stopped or came to a standstill. It feels like an extra word, the sentence would be ok with simply “the world just came to a halt” but she gives it extra meaning with adding “screaming”.

It’s definitely possible it could have been a car accident. The analysis I did on the fathers comment in my previous post showed he said:

"I mean, he [wouldn’t], he’s [not] a wanderer, he [wouldn’t] [even] cross the street by himself. He [wouldn’t] go far."

That is a lot of negative language. He brings the subject of crossing the street into his language and there is a lot of sensitivity there. I think you are right we need to take a good look at everything again and see what else there is that connects to William being run over by his father. Another from the interview was:

“he’s [always] looking out for me and my car” – the father is giving us more information connecting William to his car and wants us to know that William is "always" looking out for it, although we know that is not physically possible.

Father in video clip you mentioned: 34 seconds into it.

“if he was down at the road, you [possibly] would have seen him. [Ah he’s in, he’s in, he’s in his bright clothes.] - very sensitive to him.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

Parents statements connected to William and roads.

These quotes are taken from the Police interview previously linked.
http://williamtyrrelldisappearance.blogspot.com/2015/10/in-their-words-william-tyrrells-parents.html

Mother: “he’s got a really good understanding of his limitations. He’s not a kid that [would just run into something]” – Mentions run into something.

Mother: “My brothers have brought their kids up around there, [they would run those streets with absolutely no fear]. – Mentions “run those streets”

Father: “he’s always looking out for me and my car” – connection to car

Father: “I mean, he wouldn’t, he’s not a wanderer, he wouldn’t [even cross the street] by himself. He wouldn’t go far.” – Connection to crossing the street.

Mother: “He wouldn’t do it, he just wouldn’t do it, it’s not in him, [even] if somebody was to [entice him across the road] he wouldn’t do it, he’d run back, it’s just not in his character to go blindly with people.” – Again we see crossing the road introduced into the language. Notice she says “even” in connection to “across the road”.

From video clip: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1889904/Video-Moments-William-Tyrrells-disappearance-described-father.html

“if he was down at the road, you [possibly] would have seen him. [Ah he’s in, he’s in, he’s in his bright clothes.]

I am looking for more.

Adrian.

Michael said...

What is the sensitivity surrounding “bright clothes” & how easy that would make it to spot William?

Is William camouflaged—either at that time or in his ginal resting place?

As I said before, LE needs to look in the graveyard.
Is there any better place they could have found to “camouflauge” a grave?

Anonymous said...

Whatever happened to him happened during the nighttime—that’s why they keep talking about bright clothes, visibilty etc.

anoN said...

Was the mother envious of William’s attachment to Little Tara?

Did she throw Little Tara in the road
At night to torment William
And he ran into the road to retrieve Little Tara
And he got hit by a car?

Follow the mother’s envy & you will
Solve the case.

Anonymous said...

“Screaming halt” is reminiscent of “screeching halt”. According to www.collinsdictionary.com “to come to a screeching halt” is a.o.: (of a motor vehicle) to stop suddenly, causing the brakes or tyres to produce a high-pitched sound. "High-pitched" is exactly how the foster mother (at the inquest) described the sound she thought she heard: “a quick, high pitched and sharp” scream. “And then nothing.” So she may have been describing the sound of a car suddenly braking

I had wondered why the parents in the police interview hammered so much on William being cautious, always staying within “earshot or eyesight”, knowing his limitations, regularly checking in with his parents, not just running into something, not even crossing the street by himself, not going blindly with people, etc. I thought this was all meant to convince the listener that (1) someone must have snatched William away because he wouldn’t go willingly; and (2) the foster parents could not have been negligent in this scenario because William always stayed close. Maybe in their attempts to push the abduction-scenario they subconsciously steered us in the direction of what really happened.

If it was a car accident, it may have occurred before the foster father drove away that morning (supposedly for a business call and to “run a few jobs”). The foster mother says “it was not unusual” (double negative) for the foster father to have an appointment because "he works remotely”. Why this need for explanation? Was there another reason (or several other reasons) why the foster father drove away that morning? To hide William’s body? To have the car out of the picture so that it was less likely to be searched for forensic evidence?

One thing I found odd was the mother saying in the 60 minutes interview (when asked when she last saw William):

“Playing around that patio area. Mum and I were sitting on two chairs and then he jumped off. And he was playing on the, the grass (…)”

It seems so weird to say “sitting on two chairs”. Why not say: sitting on the patio. Maybe because that would be a direct lie? If they were not on the patio, where were they “sitting on two chairs”. In a car? In that case “sitting on two chairs” would be a good compromise (from her perspective): the mother did not tell a direct lie but at the same time didn’t reveal their actual location. In this context the following statement of the foster mother is also interesting:

“Well, when I realised that William was missing, I just, I think back to that moment where I just went, I can’t hear him, why, why can’t I hear him, and I walked around, seriously it was just 2, 3 metres away from where we were sitting, and I’ve just walked out, and I just see nothing. I see nothing, I hear nothing, I’m speechless. I’m walking around in a circle on the spot thinking, where is he, why can’t I see him, and I’m yelling out, “William, where are you, you need to talk to Mummy, tell me where you are, I can’t see you, I can’t hear you, where are you?”, (…)”

If William had just disappeared and the foster mother was looking for him, why would she walk in a circle on the spot asking herself “why can’t I see him”. That wouldn’t accomplish anything. Unless William was under a car. In that case you would walk “around” (as the foster mother repeatedly says) the car and wonder where he had gone.

Adrian, if it was indeed a car accident you’re the one who nailed it by drawing attention to “screaming halt”, the foster father mentioning getting out of the car and William not even crossing the street by himself, etc. You all but said the words car accident.

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

I have found proof in the police interview that the Father has been totally deceptive and combined with other language strongly suggests there was a car accident where he ran his son over the morning of disappearance. If we look at the 911 call we see the time of Williams disappearance given at approximately 10:30.

Operator: OK. So he's been missing since about 10:30?

Foster Mother: Yeah I'd say so.

If we look at the Police media interview: http://williamtyrrelldisappearance.blogspot.com/2015/10/in-their-words-william-tyrrells-parents.html

We see the parents asked the following question.

P: When did you guys last see him?

M: That morning, on the 12th at Mum’s place.

D: About [10.15am].

The father was meant to have been at a meeting and arrived home to find William gone but we see in his answer he places he last sighting of William at 10:15. We expect the mother to give that time but she doesn’t, she actually adds distance to the event by saying “that morning” and being non-specific.

We expect the father to say that last time he saw William was prior to going to his meeting which I don’t know the time of but it would have been much earlier. Instead he tells us it was “about 10:15” which tells us everything we need to know. He places himself at the scene.

This is a classic example of how people minds automatically try to make sense of what they are being told, how we end up helping a liar by finding a way to makes their lies make sense. Most people would explain his answer away saying he was answering for the mother but that is not the case. There is only one answer to the question but it is specific to the individual who answers.

While it is not a direct confession to a crime it is very damaging as exposes huge deception. In my last post I listed all language connected with roads and crossing roads. All that information was given by the parents freely; they are words that their minds selected when talking about William.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

”I had a meeting and I arrived back and there was a bit of confusion if William was with me, because he’s always looking out for me and my car, and I was on my way back, and I’d arrived back and been asked if William was with me and I said no, then I immediately got out of the car and started looking around, and within 5 minutes we raised the alarm and I think I ran the perimeter of the whole street within about 10-15 minutes, and I mean, he wouldn’t, he’s not a wanderer, he wouldn’t even cross the street by himself. He wouldn’t go far.”

Here the foster father over-emphasizes arriving back and William being with him (“I arrived back”, “I was on my way back”, “I’d arrived back”). When you say “arriving” quickly it sounds like “driving”. Was he driving backwards when William “disappeared”? Did he take William(‘s body) somewhere while he was away (“William was with me”, “William was with me”)?

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Do we know what "jobs" the foster father ran in town? Did he go to a car-wash?

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

Yeah, and did he get rid of his car soon after the incident? The evidence (his car) is probably long gone and useless now, but saying that I am not a forensics expert so it would be interesting to get an opinion from one. If the car could be traced would could there still be evidence found on and in it?

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/news/william-tyrrells-inquest-starts-in-sydney/news-story/18267d344c2cf0398eb9a3d69832f230

https://www.9news.com.au/national/william-tyrrell-investigation-burnt-out-car-might-be-clue/100eb4d8-1367-424d-acec-089163288300

https://www.themorningbulletin.com.au/news/burntout-car-linked-to-william-tyrrell-mystery/3519846/

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

They are interesting stories but the language of the mother and father points to them being responsible. So much sensitivity, so much negative language, a need to convince, unique words, the list goes on and on.

“Where is William: 60 Minutes_Part 1 of 3_September 6, 2015” If you watch this video and skip to the 11m 44s point you will see the parents talk of the car.

The father talks about the children always looking out for him and running to the gate but is interjected by his wife. She makes two downward hand gestures and she interrupts him as to signal him to “keep it down”. She stops him from talking about it and takes over.

She says “and I remember saying can you see daddy’s car? and there was no answer, there was no answer.”

Think about the significance of the one statement.

She has previously told us multiple times in various statements William was round the corner. Her location is allegedly round the corner from him on the patio but there is so much conflicting information regarding that, it is not credible. Her language has told us on a number of occasions she wasn’t. She is now trying to tell us that William went missing at exactly the same time as father was pulling up in his car. She knows this because she [said] “can you see daddy’s car?” She has never mentioned that before. How perfect is the timing of it?

If I had a reputation I would stake it on this. That on returning home the Father accidentally ran over William with his car. The language points to it clearly. After watching the clip and seeing how his wife took control of the situation when the sensitive point came up it reinforces everything we already know.

I feel sorry for the interviewer who was in tears on multiple occasions regarding the story. The wife is a very strong personality; the husband is the weak link. If he was ever questioned alone about this I am sure he would crumble immediately.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

Adrian, the stories were for information purposes only -> I don't find them believable (I had already scanned through them a few days ago). The first story has interesting quotes from the foster mother. She says a.o.:

“I went out, down through all these ferns, he’s not there. I am just trying to find this red. I think in all this green, I’ve got to see some red somewhere. Where’s the red? Why can’t I see the red?”

So strange. By saying “red”, “red”, “red”, she consciously refers to the Spiderman outfit, but I wondered: is she reliving a bloody accident (red, red, red, etc).

As for the burnt out car in the woods: if this was really the car William was abducted in -> would the kidnapper hide the car in the woods near the crime scene and leave it there for several years? That would be very stupid, all the more because this is one of Australia’s most famous and highly publicized criminal cases. Maybe it’s a ploy. I never believed the kidnapper-scenario. Not only because of the parents’ statements but also because the kidnapper(s) would have to have been clairvoyant to know that William was there.

The 60 minutes interviewer should have been a bit more skeptical i.m.o...

In many of these cases the wife seems to be the dominant personality. In the Karlie Guse case as well: Melissa does all the talking and writing, Zachary seems extremely absent. Another example is Isabel Celis. Most people seem to think Sergio has some involvement in Isabel's death but I think Becky is primarily responsible.

I watched the part of the video you mentioned. Now that you say it -> indeed she seems to quickly talk over him so as to prevent him from spilling details.

Autumn

AnoN H L said...

Why would they
Have hidden it
If it was an accident
And the father accidentally ran him over?

Keep thinking. Follow the mother’s envy. Envy seeks to destroy.

What would have made mother envious & then what did she do?

Keep thinking, Clarice.

frommindtomatter said...

Autumn It’s a good point you make about the women seeming to be the ones taking the leading role in similar cases. The danger seems to be that they can take things a little far and overplay things. The more said the more chance of contradicting statements being made; also we get more data to look at.

It’s disappointing the Police have gone off on the wrong track with the investigation; we can only imagine how much money and manpower has been wasted in the process. Where’s Colombo when you need him eh? He would have kept going back to the parents saying “just one more thing” till he got them where he wanted them.

The human mind can be your best friend or worst enemy it all depends on the situation. The mind wants to solve and rationalise things which is great, but the flip side is that it will try to make sense of the garbage we are told by criminals and Politicians (interchangeable words I know).

We ask why many of these cases which we believe are accidents are not reported as if it was an accident then what would be the problem. In all of the cases there is some level of neglect and I believe it is how the person personally interprets that amount which decides on their actions. If we took a hypothetical situation of a parent leaving a child in a paddling pool in their back garden while they nipped to the toilet or made a cup of tea (where the child was out of sight) and were gone for two minutes. If the parent returned to find their child had drowned in their short absence what will they do? No matter how short a time they were gone there is still a level of neglect involved and the greater the time the greater its level and effect on the parent. The mind always looks to move blame onto others, it is a built in defence mechanism to protect itself. It quickly crunches all the data relevant to the situation and offers a solution which will be least painful to the person (itself). In cases like the one we are dealing with it is not just the worry of the Police, press and others pointing blame at them but it is the fact they must live with what has happened for the rest of their lives. If the blame isn’t moved away then the guilt must be dealt with, and the parent must say “I am responsible for my child’s death”. This is what makes the difference between the kinds of people we meet in our everyday lives. Some will hold their hands up when they are wrong whereas others will try to pass the blame onto others.

I would rather be friends with someone who had done something wrong, but had admitted to it and took responsibility for their actions than someone who had not only lied to others, but to themselves as well. You can go to prison and physically serve time for a crime, and it be deemed you have paid your dues to society upon release. The question is did the mind get released with the body? :)

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

Possible motive for cover up -> I think it was probably a neglectful accident. There is a good chance that if the foster parents had confessed to that, the foster organization would have taken their foster daughter away from them as well. Also: in that case the foster parents probably would not have been allowed to have another foster child ever again. That may have been an important reason for cover up. The most difficult part of this gigantic secret must be that they cannot tell their daughter (all the more because William was her biological brother). The foster mother alludes to that in the police interview: “We can’t live forever like this, his sister can’t grow up never knowing what happened to her brother.”

I think the mother often plays a dominant role in domestic neglectful accident type cases because the mother is often the primary caretaker. So there are simply more opportunities for mothers to cause accidents to their children (compared to fathers).

Adrian, in the police interview the foster mother says "No" when the foster dad says the last time he saw William was 10:15 AM (it's not in the transcript). She is clearly trying to correct him i.m.o. (around 1:30 in the video):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZALVhn0hElY

Autumn

ANon said...

Is that you, Clarice?

frommindtomatter said...

Autumn your right the transcript of that interview (which I hadn’t seen) is not accurate at all. Repeated words, stutters etc.. have not been included in it. We have been working off a transcript which has been tidied up to make it more reader friendly. I have only had a quick listen but I noticed that extra words had been added to the transcript to make it read better also.

I revised a few sentences to show how badly off the original transcript is so we need to look at it again to see what he been omitted.

Original transcript:

I had a meeting and I arrived back and there was a bit of confusion if William was with me, because he’s always looking out for me and my car, and I was on my way back, and I’d arrived back and been asked if William was with me and I said no, then I immediately got out of the car

Revised transcript:

“I`d, I`d had a meeting and I arriv., I arrived back and, and there was a little bit of confusion as to whether William was with me, because he, he was, he’s always looking out for me and my car, and ah.. and I was on my way back, and I’d arrived back and, and ah.. and I err, erm.. then asked if William was with me and I said no, and um, and then err. I immediately got out of the car”

That’s a big difference in a few lines of text, who knows what new information we might discover if we revise the transcript fully.

Adrian.

Anonibal said...

Clarice, Are the lambs still crying in your dreams?

Clarice said...

Anonibal,

Tell me how to solve the case! I can’t figure it out. Did Little Tara do it? Was it an accident?

frommindtomatter said...

Three past tense references from Williams father.

While listening through the interview looking for omitted parts of the transcript I found:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZALVhn0hElY

8m 15 seconds

P: Parents know their own kids, don’t they?

D: He [was] cautious, he’d cower away as little children would normally do, but he [was], he [had] this instinct about him about doing the right and wrong thing.

Two uses of the word “was”, instead of he is cautious we get “he [was] cautious”. The second use of the word had been omitted from the original transcript but if you watch the clip it is there.

We then see the father tell us “he [had] this instinct about him” which tells us the father knows William no longer has it.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

P: Parents know their own kids, don’t they?

D: He [was] cautious, he’d cower away as little children would normally do, but he [was], he [had] this instinct about him about doing the right and wrong thing.

How long after he went missing was this statement?

When a person goes missing, there are factors to consider:

1. How close is the subject to the person that has gone missing? A mother would be the closest: mother and child relationship is highly personal. A grandmother raising a child would be very close.

2. How much time has passed? If the person just went missing, we would not expect any past tense references from anyone yet. If the child has been missing for months, resistance to accepting death is much less.

3. What circumstances envelop the missing person? For example, if the person is missing at sea, or in sub zero weather, the natural resistance to referring to the missing person in the past tense will be diminished. If the child is supposedly with someone, like a baby sitter, is the babysitter known to be violent? Did the person go missing at the hands of a murderous pedophile?

Generally speaking, mothers have a very powerful instinct over their children and have the highest level of resistance (denial) to accepting that a child is deceased.

I once listened to a mother who's child had been murdered years earlier slip into present tense language. This is how powerful denial can be.

*The closer the person is to the missing person, the greater the resistance to using past tense. (This goes for family and friends)

Mothers of missing babies are aflame with instinct, protective capacity, and intuition.
Fathers are to follow. Ask yourself, "How close is this person to the one missing?" Some aunts, for example, raise children as their own, and should be viewed closer to being a "mother" than an aunt.

Fathers will often be a close second.

The age of the child can be a factor, as older children can get into more danger, for example, like falling or drawing, than a baby who cannot yet crawl.

Men will yield to the past tense earlier than females. Women seem to have stronger denial than men.

Mothers are the last to give up hope. Desiree Young, mother of missing Kyron Horman was an example of this.

Another factor:

Have the police given the family any indication of death?

This is important. If police have shared information with a family, it could cause someone to speak in the past tense.

Factors:

Time: how much time has passed?

Safely, if the police have revealed nothing and the child has not been missing very long, the past tense reference is very alarming. After months, however, when hope is eroded, the reference may come.

Weather: Did the missing person live in a moderate climate, or an extreme climate? In sub zero temperature, hope will not last as long as it will in warmer climates. Were there terrible storms? Flooding?


Environmental conditions: Does the missing person suffer from adult autism, or has mental retardation?

Did the person go missing in a high crime area? This could weigh upon the subject.

In the case of Leeanne Bearden, she appears to be someone who could survive well, having traveled the world in the past two years.

Personality of the Subject

Someone who suffers from depression will yield earlier in giving up hope and speak in past tense than a person who, for example, has a naturally buoyant personality, always up and always optimistic.

The analyst must take into consideration many factors before concluding:

The subject knows or believes the missing person is deceased.

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2014/02/missing-persons-and-past-tense-verbs_5.html


-David

frommindtomatter said...

David thanks for your detailed post concerning the subject. I am aware there are many reasons for past tense usage in statements. In my post I made one bad choice of word, I said “the father [knows]” which is probably what triggered your response. I hold my hand up to my mistake. I should have said “believed” as one can believe in many things without proof of their existence, God or Aliens would be two examples.

I [believe] that William was run over by his father by accident. There are multiple reasons for that which I have addressed in my previous posts. His usage of past tense language adds another flag which should be considered along with everything else.

A quote from the interview:

Father: “As I said before we’re praying for a miracle for him to return alive”

I think it would be fair to say from that comment that the Father does not believe he is alive. He is not praying for his safe return but for a “miracle”, the miracle would be for him to “return alive”.

There are many uses of language that suggest the father believes William is deceased, more than just talking in past tense. The transcript I worked from is inaccurate, it has omissions. The editor of it tidied it up to make it more readable.

Here’s a snippet from the end of his answer, compare the edited original to my personal transcript.

P: What do you think has happened to William?

Original:

“This is not a child gone missing in the bush, this is heading down the path of abduction or something more sinister. That’s what I believe, what I truly believe now, and I still pray to this day that he’s alive.”

Revised:

“This is not a child gone missing in the bush. This, this is heading down the path of abduction or something more sin, sinister. That’s, that’s what I,I, I believe, I truly believe now, and I,I, I still pray to this day that he’s alive.”

The revised edition reveals much more. For instance the original “That’s what I believe” becomes:

“That’s, that’s what I,I, I believe”

Do you think he believes his own words? I don’t.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

“This is not a child gone missing in the bush. This, this is heading down the path of abduction or something more sin, sinister. That’s, that’s what I,I, Ibelieve, I truly believe now, and I,I, I still pray to this day that he’s alive.”

If he isn't a stutterer, then what he "believes" is very sensitive.

We have the "bush" cropping up again along with "down the path" Was it his foster mother that used this language, too.

-David

Anonymous said...

Could "down the path" refer to Nanna's driveway? Nanna's house sits on top of a hill and the driveway is going somewhat down. William was riding his bike on Nanna's driveway at 9 AM on the day of his disappearance. Around that time a dark green/greyish coloured sedan reportedly drove past (according to the foster mother).

There is an interesting quote from the foster mother about driveways. She states that there were two other cars across the road from Nanna's home that morning. During the inquest she told the court how she thought that was odd because:

"The driveways are really long — so to walk down the driveways doesn't make sense if you were visiting someone"

She says the cars were dirty and old and had tinted windows so you couldn't see through them.

So we have William going down a path (the driveway) at 9 AM and at that same time a car driving by. Did the foster father drive backwards down the driveway because he had a conference call (this call was the reason they left a day earlier)? Was he unable to see William because the windows of his car were dirty? Did he have tinted sunglasses on? What was the color of their car?

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

Moments before William Tyrrell's disappearance described by father

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hk8Gfsc2OMI

Transcript of first 20 seconds of recording.

“I then said to (beeped out to hide identity) well where is he, where, where, where’s he gone? She said he was, was here five minutes ago, here five minutes ago. (Inaudible) saw sitting down (points at porch). I said where’s he gone? She said I can’t find him, so I then”

We are informed that William was there five minutes ago which means five minutes had elapsed since he went missing. That would mean his father arrived on scene five minutes after Williams disappearance. We note that.

Compare that information with what follows:

“Where is William: 60 Minutes_Part 1 of 3_September 6, 2015” If you watch this video and skip to the 11m 44s point you will see the parents talk of the car.

She says “and I remember saying can you see daddy’s car? And there was no answer, there was no answer.”

So the mother by her language suggests the father is arriving home (pulling up the drive or vehicle can be heard) as that would be the logical reason for her to say to William (who is round the corner out of sight allegedly) “can you see daddy’s car?” She tells us that there was no answer from William which indicates this would be the exact time she discovered him missing.

That’s means that it took the father who we believe was pulling up in his car 5 minutes to get from his car to see his wife who tells him William has been missing for five minutes. That is three hundred seconds. That is a long time, if you start counting out loud from one to three hundred you will get bored quickly and realise just how long that amount of time is.

If it took the father five minutes to get out of car and walk to the mother it would place him at the house at the time the mother gives for Williams’s disappearance (five minutes ago). Those are the words of the parents not mine.

It is pure fabrication. It is there to cover the timeline of events that really happened.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

Since there is a Little Tara, who is Big Tara?

Was William Big Tara?

frommindtomatter said...

Autumn said:

“William was riding his bike on Nanna's driveway at 9 AM on the day of his disappearance.”

That timeline would fit with an accident occurring around that time and then the Father then going to his meeting and chemist. There are a few references regarding the bike in the Police statement which are interesting. Let’s see what statements we can find bike related.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

Williams Bike:

Below is my revised unedited version of the question from the Police interview.

http://williamtyrrelldisappearance.blogspot.com/2015/10/in-their-words-william-tyrrells-parents.html

P: What were his likes? What did he like to do?

M: We’d got him a bike for his birthday, so we’d all go bike riding together, and he was just in [heaven]. He was just, its just……..We’ve got pictures of William riding [this] bike, and there is just [unbridled] joy, just over his face, he was just free, and [he], [we] would have, and he was really good. [Just racing], just, just wanted to get on that bike and just ride it.

“and he was just in [heaven].” – The use of the word heaven is not an uncommon statement but we must consider that due to the nature of the case and the language in the case pointing to William being run over its use may have more significance. Many other words could have been used but the mother chose “heaven”.

“of William riding [this] bike” – The original transcript includes the word “this” and after listening to the interview to get a fuller transcript I am not sure if the mother says “this” or “his”. If she did say “this” then we note that she brings the bike closer to her, she has a strong connection with it. Of course it may be through sentiment on her part but we must consider it could have other connotations connected to it. She obviously could have said “that bike” which we would expect when describing something from the past.

“there is just [unbridled] joy, just over his face” – I have marked the word unbridled as a unique word. If we look at the word unbridled and its synonyms in the dictionary we find words such as:

Uncontrolled, unconstrained, unrestrained, unconstrained, uncontrolled, uninhibited, unrestricted, unchecked, uncurbed, rampant, runaway, irrepressible, unstoppable.

Note she tells us that the unbridled joy is “[just]” over his face” – This could be minimising language to convince that is was only Williams face that showed unbridled behaviour.

“and[ h]e, [we] would have, and he was really good. [Just racing]” – We see self-censorship as the mother begins to tell us “and he” but moves to “we would”. She changes the pronoun which suggests that whatever she was going to say William would do isn’t something he should be doing on his own. She then doesn’t finish what started and bluntly changes to “and he was really good”

“[Just racing], just, just wanted to get on that bike and just ride it” – She uses the word “just” to minimise Williams behaviour on his bike. She is telling us that it is only racing, no big deal. We question why she feels the need to mention it to us. She shows her sensitivity to Williams racing by showing a need to minimise it in her language.

Combine the minimising language regarding Williams behaviour when riding his bike with her use of the unique word unbridled and it paints a picture of a child who was wild when racing on his bike.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

A quote from William Tyrell inquest:

"It was [like] a scream. It was [like] when a child hurts themselves unexpectedly there's a scream," she recounted to counsel assisting the coroner Gerard Craddock SC on day-two of the inquest

"It [felt] like a scream," she said of September 12, 2014, the day he vanished from his foster grandmother's rural property at Kendall, on the NSW mid-north coast. "It was quick and it was high pitched and it was sharp."

The mother tells us that “it felt like a scream”. We expect her to say it sounded like a scream. If you see something in the woods that looked like a Deer you would say “it looked like Deer. If you heard something in the woods which sounded like a bird you would say it sounded like a bird. I wouldn’t expect someone to say they heard something that felt like anything.

She uses the word “felt” which describes something which can be experienced either physically through touch or emotionally through feelings.


Adrian.

Anonymous said...

Here’s a link to another interview with William’s foster parents:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmVi7aaUv1Y

Some interesting statements from this interview:

INTERVIEWER: “Let’s start by telling us some of the details of the moment that William went missing.“

FOSTER MOTHER: “The moment I knew he was missing was when I walked around the side of the house and I expected to see him on the grass ready to jump at me like a, the [roaring and the] Daddy Tiger game he was playing and, ummm, I walked out and I just looked, I just looked and I just.. stunned, I just.. why, why couldn’t I see him, ummm, and then I just … just thought, I thought is he hiding from me? And then I thought, I thought, I mean there’s like so many thoughts that just go crashing through your brain in a split second. I thought is he hiding from me, where’s he gone, has he come around the other side of the house and we haven’t seen him, has he decided to go under the house, has he decided to go, you know, anything, I, I didn’t know.”

NOTE: Daddy Tiger was a hide and seek sort of game. Did William hide under the car? Did someone start the car with William still under it? And wouldn't it make more sense to play "Daddy Tiger" with daddy (around)? Also: the umpteenth reference to “head” -> “crashing through your brain in a split second”...

INTERVIEWER: “And what was the time between when you last saw him and when you realized he was missing?”

FOSTER MOTHER: “ Ummm....there's big, eh, glassy…grassy clump of grass and I thought maybe he’s hiding in that and I raced down there and I raced back up again and, and I think mum must have heard me yelling out for William because she's standing up and sh… I walked back around to where we were sitting and she’s standing and I just said 'Is he here?" and she said 'Why would he be here?" and I said 'Well I can't find him" and she said “What do you mean? Why can't you find him?” and I said “He's gone."

INTERVIEWER: “(…) although we fear what may have happened to William there are other possibilities, right?”

FOSTER MOTHER:“Yeah, yeah, the, the best scenario for us is that William is being loved and cared for by other people. Ehm, there's no evidence that says that he’s not, that he, in terms of, there’s no evidence to say that he’s dead, so for me the best outcome is that William is loved by somebody else, because he deserves to be loved and if he can’t be with us, he has to be with someone else who cherishes him and [will], and treats him like their own child.”

NOTE: The foster parents are "committed Christians" -> maybe she means the best scenario is for William to be in God's hands?

INTERVIEWER: ”And your message to those people if that’s the scenario?”

FOSTER FATHER:“Look i…if that’s the scenario, oh, hm, excuse me, well, or, or i..i..in any scenario, please just give William back and y..you can be the person who can help bring William home.”

Autumn

Anonymous said...

Link to a detailed timeline of William's disappearance:

https://www.facebook.com/insightpod/posts/timeline-for-story-on-william-tyrrell-%C6%B9%CC%B5%CC%A1%D3%9D%CC%B5%CC%A8%CC%84%CA%92-the-morning-of-the-12th-%C6%B9%CC%B5%CC%A1%D3%9D%CC%B5%CC%A8%CC%84%CA%92-/1503580763000828/

Apparently the police have investigated the photo of William on the patio and have confirmed that it was taken at around 9:45 AM that day (other reports say it was taken "within an hour" of William going missing). The foster mother said about this photo: "I look at that picture and I just think, minutes, minutes, and our world has changed."

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

Good links I am going to take a look now. That`s a good observation you made regarding the photo and the mother referencing minutes till their world had changed. That could give us a good focus point in the timeline.

I think I am on to something major but before I say anything I want to confirm how many people were at the house at the time of Williams disappearance. What do the Police records, news articles give as the number? I thought there was Mother,grandmother, daughter and William making four. Is that number correct? Obviously the father was part of this but in the reports we are told he was not there.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

I've not read anything specific about number of persons, but have assumed that indeed those four were at the house. According to the timeline, the foster father left Nanna’s house (for his conference call and for the chemist) at 9.15 AM and police confirmed he was where he said he was.

The mother herself qualifies the abduction story as ridiculous: "You’d expect abductions in the city, you don’t expect to hear about abductions out here in Kendall, I mean it’s just ridiculous."

I think she's right (interestingly, she also says "to hear about abductions out here" instead of "abductions to happen out here"). However, this fabrication may have a lot of truth in it.

As early as 7 AM the foster mother opens the curtains and supposedly sees two suspicious cars (“aged and unkempt”) on the road opposite Nanna's house. The windows of these cars are tinted and no person can be seen. So from the start she outlines the huge threat that hangs over William's life that morning:
- two cars;
- tinted windows (alluding to invisibility of William?);
- no person can be seen (William overlooked by whoever was in the car?).

The question is why did the foster mother come up with two cars instead of one? Maybe because two cars were involved. The foster dad had a car but Nanna may have had a car as well. Was/were the foster mother and/or Nanna in Nanna’s car while William “disappeared? ("Mum and I were sitting on two chairs and then he jumped off.") Whatever happened to William, I doubt there was a lot of blood -> they had sniffer dogs the same day going around Nanna’s house and the area -> wouldn’t the dogs (and police) have noticed a large blood stain?

At one point a third car enters the story. This car drives by Nanna’s house around the time William was riding his bike on the driveway. The driver turns his car around in the neighbour’s driveway before exchanging weird glances with the foster mother which she describes as: “why are you watching me, I am watching you”. The car makes a u-turn. Again, as mentioned by the mother, this story is ridiculous. But there may be elements of truth:
- a car drives by = the foster father coming back to Nanna’s home (1) after receiving the frantic phone call from the foster mother that William had “disappeared” or (2) causing William's accident
- the car turns around in the neighbour’s driveway = the foster father turns around in Nanna’s driveway
- the driver exchanges weird glances with the foster mother = the foster mother locks eyes with the foster father: “do you see what I see?” -> the unthinkable has happened
- the driver makes a u-turn = foster father takes William away

The foster mother later said she believed the two initial cars were there to abduct both William and his sister. ““My heart just sank because I thought those two cars were there for both of them,” she told the court, her voice breaking as she wept in the witness box.” This may allude to the main reason for a cover up: the mother was afraid of losing William’s sister (due to what happened with car/cars) as well.

There’s another interesting quote from the foster mother. She said she didn’t realize until after William went missing that the two cars were gone:

“I know in hindsight that they weren’t there but whilst I was searching I didn’t. In the initial stage, it didn’t even occur to me that those cars weren’t there.”

Those cars weren’t there…

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

Regarding the abduction scenario and the cars the mother remembered six days later. Going back to the emergency call she said:

Operator: There wasn't anyone um suspicious in the area? Any vehicles?

Foster Mother: No, no, no, no well not that I [no] know, not that I'm aware of. We were just, I was out there talking with my mum and my other daughter so...

The original had [no] I think that should be “know” so I changed it above.

She starts by repeated “No,no,no,no,no” which I believe is certainty on her part. If she knows William was not abducted her mind would tell her “no, not possible”. I think the operator puts the idea of possible abduction into her mind by asking the question and she moves from strong denial to beginning to entertain the idea “not that I`m aware of”. She self-censors as it looks like she was going to say “not that I know of” but changes to say “aware of” which makes a big difference.

I agree with your comment regarding the dogs. It would be interesting to know where the dogs did lead the Police because there must have been some scent to follow.

The statement you posted:
“I know in hindsight that they weren’t there but whilst I was searching I didn’t. In the initial stage, it didn’t even occur to me that those cars weren’t there.”

Yes all very negative language. It’s a bit of a tongue twister say as well. If the shortest sentence is the best something went wrong there.

I am going to post something now which could open up new possibilities let me know what you think.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

This could open up different scenario Part 1.

As far as I am aware the only people at the house when William disappeared were the mother, grandmother, Williams sister and William.

Emergency Call:

Operator: There wasn't anyone um suspicious in the area? Any vehicles?

Foster Mother: No, no, no, no well not that I know not that I'm aware of. We were just, I was out there talking with my mum and my [other daughter] so...

Police Interview:

P: Because you can’t extinguish that love for your boy, you’re caring parents - you’re wondering is he okay?

M: Never, never. And I have to watch, we have to watch his sister learn to play, and learn to be an [only child], it’s heartbreaking.

In the emergency call the mother tells us she was talking with her mum and [other daughter] which tells us there was more than one of her daughters present at the house. In the Police interview she tells us Williams sister must learn to be an [only child]. We see obvious conflict in her statements and we also see that all records from the Police and media tell of four people (including William) at the house at the time of his disappearance. So if we believe the mother, and we should do as we must let her guide us with her words, we are looking at an extra person being at the scene. This extra person has been mentioned once [other daughter] in the emergency call and then never spoken of again.

In the emergency call the use of “other daughter” stands out, because for her to introduce a second daughter we need her to have introduced a first one earlier in her statement, but she didn’t. We know now from other statements, for example the Police interview I referenced above that she describes her daughter as now being an only child. So we ask who and where is the [other daughter] she introduced in the emergency call.

The only explanation I can see is that she does in fact have another daughter, but that daughter is from a previous relationship and is an adult. This other daughter could have been visiting her grandmother at the same time as William and other family members.

As far as I am aware on the morning of Williams disappearance there was the mother, father, grandmother and Williams sister at the property. I don’t see any reference to another daughter or person in any other statement I have seen.

see part 2

frommindtomatter said...

This could open up different scenario Part 2.

If we analyse the statement made from the emergency call below.

Foster Mother: No, no, no, no well not that I know not that I'm aware of. [We] were just, [I] was out there talking with my mum and my [other daughter] so...

We see a pronoun change from “we were” - then self-censorship and a change to “I was”. We know the power of pronouns and the fact the mother changed her usage of them shows not only sensitivity but deception in her words. If we read her statement without her pronoun correction it reads:

[We] were just out there talking with my mum and my [other daughter] so...

This suggests that the mother and another person/s were talking with her mother and other daughter. This places at least four people on the porch instead of the three which have been given in the original story. I said earlier that for another daughter to be introduced into the conversation the first daughter must have/needs to have been given an introduction, but we see looking at the emergency call that is not the case. So we ask what made her use the language she did. I believe I have the answer.

When the mother says “We were” out there talking she is introducing herself and someone else to her account. We don’t know who that someone else is but we can deduce it from her language. If that someone else is Williams sister (her daughter) and she is talking to her mother and [other daughter], in her mind she has introduced one daughter by making the statement “we were”. So to reiterate, one daughter is introduced with “we were” which allows for her to bring the language [“other daughter”] into her statement, so we see there are two introductions made.

This brings us to the question where did the other daughter disappear to in the rest of the story? The mother by changing the pronoun to suit her narrative actually drew attention to her words rather than cover their meaning, and her one mention of “other daughter” totally changes the way this story plays out.

If there was another daughter did she have a car, when did she arrive, when did she leave etc.. It leads to a lot of questions. The major question would be if she was there then why did she leave instead of help look for missing William? The Police would benefit by finding out if the mother (49 years old) has a daughter from a previous relationship. If she does it would open up a whole new line of enquiry.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

You're right -> the foster mother changes "we" to "I" -> so there may have been another person. However, this change implies that she realized already at the start of that sentence that she was about to give something away she didn’t want to. Another indication of that is: she pauses briefly after the word “my”. So I think “other daughter” may be more likely what the foster mother came up with than 100% reality. The interesting word here is “other”. Why did she include that?

When I first looked into this case I thought something similar: did Nanna have another daughter? Was the foster mother out there talking with her sister and Nanna? Did the foster mother (1) not want to reveal the presence of her sister, (2) realize she was about to do so and (3) quickly say "my other daughter" instead of “my sister”/”mum’s other daughter”? But it didn't really make sense to me: why would she want to hide the presence of her sister (I was not thinking of car accidents at that time)? Also: in the police interview she talks about her brothers' kids running the street around Nanna's house with no fear. Therefore I assumed the foster mother only has brothers. Maybe she has a childless sister though. Or it could have been a sister-in-law. But wouldn’t the neighbors have noticed the presence of another family member(‘s car)?

Another thing I wondered is: was the foster mother about to say the name of her daughter? Did she quickly realize she didn’t want to and say “other daughter” instead? However, I don’t find it very likely that she was going to say her daughter’s name in the 000 call in the first place (assuming the operator didn’t know the family). Also: in that case “other” still doesn’t make much sense. Maybe she wanted to say “other kid”/”daughter” and made a combination in a frantic state of mind? Maybe she wanted to say “my husband”? But if the foster mother was “out there” talking with Nanna and the foster father then who caused William’s disappearance? And again: why in that case say “other”? By the way, it’s strange that the foster mother says she and Nanna were “out there” talking. Wasn’t she supposed to be inside?

You’re right. There may have been an actual second/third car after all. Some car swapping may have gone on. When the mother says she saw two cars when she opened the curtains that morning, she was probably right. They just didn’t belong to some clairvoyant child abductors i.m.o.. They belonged to the family.

Autumn

Hey Jude said...

Possibly the mother was thinking in terms of her relationship to the children - William was her foster child, and his sister was her ‘other’ foster child. She did not want it known that they were foster children. ‘. other daughter’ may have been to avoid saying what was on her mind, that they were not her own children, thus ‘other foster child’ came out as ‘other daughter’.

frommindtomatter said...

I didn’t know the daughter was a foster child as well, is there a link to information stating that? If so then there is a possibility that the mother had some sensitivity towards her connection to the children which came out in her language. I think if the Police haven’t already, then they should check to see if the mother does have a daughter from a previous relationship just to cover all bases.

We still have the pronoun change which entertains the possibility of an extra person/s being there.

“We were just, I was out there”

This could mean she started her sentence and was going to describe everyone on the porch with the pronoun “we” but we would then have to question why she felt the need to change it to “I”. It could mean “we” as in her and another person/s were talking to her mother and other daughter. If so the other person/s could be someone we don’t know about or even William.

Adrian.

Hey Jude said...

^ William and his biological sister were fostered together - the little girl still lives with the foster parents - her biological mother wants her back. YouTube has interviews with William’s birth mother which verify that.

frommindtomatter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hey Jude said...

Adrian - Here’s a YouTube in which William and his sister’s birth mother is interviewed:

https://youtu.be/Z3HL7BPdVbk

——-


Could the change to ‘I’ from ‘we’ be due to the foster mother knowing that the grandmother might not be willing to back up her story, so she thinks better of saying ‘we’ there? The foster grandmother is conspicuous by her absence in interviews - as I recall, she also did not attend the inquest.

Anonymous said...

If it was a cover up the most important reason may have been that the foster parents didn't want to lose their other foster child as well (see also my comment of April 13 at 2:13 AM). In that case the fact that her daughter was also a foster child was probably (1) at the forefront of the foster mother's mind and (2) something the foster mother didn't want to draw attention to. This juxtaposition may indeed have caused her to say "my other daughter", like Hey Jude wrote.

The operator’s question was: “There wasn't anyone um suspicious in the area? Any vehicles?” The foster mother could have given a short and simple answer, like: “No, not that I know of.” But she obviously felt a need to explain. Maybe the mother changed from "we" to "I" because she was about to reveal what she and William were doing at the time of his “disappearance” (“We were just” feels like the start of an exculpatory explanation). Realizing just in time she shouldn’t give such details she quickly switched to Nanna and her daughter/other child (this switch may have also caused her to say “other”-> as in: other than William). The repeated “no” in the foster mother’s answer was possibly an effort to steer attention away from “any vehicles”.

As mentioned before, I think the most interesting part of the foster mother’s answer is that (1) she mentions herself at all and (2) indicates that she was “out there”. Why? The operator didn’t ask where she was and what she was doing. The operator asked if there was anyone suspicious in the area. So was the foster mother subconsciously pointing to herself as the suspicious person? Also, what does “out there” mean? She places herself at the scene talking with Nanna. That’s weird. I’ve read the foster mother and/or Nanna had gone inside to make a cup of tea. In that case they couldn’t have been “out there” talking.

I think the grandmother backed the foster parents’ story. After all, the police seems to be buying the abduction story.

Autumn

The Thinker said...

Why did she hate Little Tara so much? She hated her & flung her & threw her & screeched, filled with wild hatred, she violently threw Little Tara and then she screamed & then something happened.

What was she mad about?
Why grab & throw Little Tara
Like that?

me said...

Omg the poor bio Mom—I just watched the video. I usually dont become emotional when seeing people cry due to numbness from PTSD, but I literally felt her pain...so incredibly sad...she is gutted by the loss of William. God please be with her & bring her comfort.

It was the evil POS foster parents that did it.

Me said...

The bio Mom loves William—that is the grief of love.
So sad, I hate that bitch fostermonster

Me said...

I think she sold him to a pedo.

That is why she kept saying he was wearing bright colors, you couldn't not see him. She made sure he was wearing a distinct bright costume so that the pedo would know to snatch the right kid and that William would also be very visible to the pedo when he drove up to the yard. "He will be the kid in the Spiderman outfit" is what she told him.
That's why she said "Do you see Daddy's car?"
She arranged for his "abduction" out of the yard (it was really that she sold him.)
That is why she said that he "usually cowers"(from strangers).
The pedo was able to approach him.
That is why she said she "heard a sharp scream and then nothing".
William let out a scream when the pedo grabbed him.
That is why she took the picture of William in the Spiderman costume right before he was "abducted" (as an alibi).
She is speaking the language of abduction...she sold him....she had him abducted out of the yard..
Someone grabbed him that is why he let out the sharp scream.
She dressed him intentionally in a distinct bright COSTUME so he would be visible and unmistakable to the "abductor" that she sold him to.
She brought him there to that isolated house so that noone would see the "transaction".


Me said...

Her last words to William were "Do you see Daddy's car?"

She asked him that so he would go around the corner of the house and be visible to the abductor who was in a car.

I have never felt so strongly in any case that the mother did sell him and she did a transaction whereby the pedo she sold him to "abducted" him out of the yard.

She dressed him in the Spiderman costume so he would be recognizable and visible to the "abductor" (purchaser) of William.

Me said...

Ask yourself: Why did the foster mother pack the Spiderman costume for a 2 day visit to her mother's? Why? And not just as some toy but she made sure to dress him in it?

She talks about how bright and visible William was.

She sold him.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 262   Newer› Newest»