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.


273 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 273 of 273
frommindtomatter said...

Hey Jude yes it’s possible. She says “talking with” which could suggest distance. Her language moves away from the unity implied by [“we” were talking] and shifts to “I” was talking “with”.

If the grandmother has not given interviews and if she did not attend the inquest it certainly puts distance between her and the parents, and also shows a lack of support. She must have been interviewed by the Police at some point and that would be an interesting statement to have access to. Autumn pointed out that she must have backed the parents story so her statement must have been good enough for police not to dig deeper, but she could have played the “I know nothing so I can’t help you card. Deorre Kunz grandfather is a good example of that behaviour.

What troubles me is the sensitivity to the timeline from the parents. We expect some sensitivity with regards to William being unsupervised for a period of time and we have that from the mother, the emergency call being one example. We expect she wants to minimise the amount time he was out of sight. The problem is they show more than that, they show a need to convince regarding the time he went missing at. We don’t know that only they do, so it would be easy for them to simply say for instance:

“I couldn’t hear him I so went to check on him. He wasn’t there so I looked around and then called Police”

Very simple story and all they needed to say regarding supervision was that he was out of sight for a couple of minutes. We don’t know and can’t prove otherwise so have to take their word for it. They have gone way beyond that in their statements for instance the father telling us everything was done “within” a certain time and also giving a conflicting time of 10:15 for last sighting in one of the interviews. The mother saying she noticed he had stopped roaring in one statement and then in another saying “can you hear daddys car” and saying there was no reply.

Their behaviour suggests that something more than William simply vanishing occurred. They need to justify their actions in more ways than just relating to negligent supervision. Again for instance there is a lot of sensitivity about the father going to a meeting and his return. Why should that be sensitive information? It shouldn’t be.

Adrian.

John said...

Me said... @April 17, 2019 at 3:59 AM

"I think she sold him to a pedo."

Hi,

could you explain what is in the language that leads you to think she sold him to a "pedo"

Thanks

Me said...

John,

Her statements:
“I called the washing machine man to come fix the washing machine because there was laundry piling up”.
Her reference to William as “my other daughter”.
Her trying to get him to “climb a tree” (another way of trying to make him “visible”.

“he was so bright and visible”

“Do you see Daddy’s car?” to get him to go around corner of the house to see a car even though she had no way of knowing if Daddy’s car was there, but she would know if she had told a pedo she had sold him to to show up at that time.
“He usually COWERS”.
Her creepy fixation on “Little Tara”

Father mentions “water” (very unisual with suspects describing their actions (searching) immediately after they notice their child is missing. He says something like “water follows the easiest path downhill”.

In my opinion the “Daddy roar game” is suspicious since Daddy wasnt even there.

Unknown said...

I remember this case. Would you abduct a child that wears clothes that stand out (spiderman clothing)?

-wen

Me said...

Little kids wear costumes like that OVER their clothes. The mother probably told whoever she sold him to that "He'll be easy to see. I'll send him around the house. He'll be wearing a Spiderman costume." The abductor could just remove the costume once they got in the car and the boy would be wearing normal, plain clothes underneath. The mother gave the slimeball at least 15-20 minutes to get the hell out of there before she even called the cops (although Im sure she waited longer than that even.

I believe with every fiber of my being that that is what happened.

The bio mother's grief is soul-crushing (I considered writing her a letter to comfort her) and they should waterboard the foster parents for answers bc I believe William could still be alive. The poor bio mother is alone, and crushed with guilt and shame, isolating herself from the world. She needs William. Her grief is immeasurable. She loves William with all her heart. The bio mother's language resembles Patsy Ramsey (although I am not convinced that they killed Jon Benet or had anything to do with it) where the first thing you hear is about laundry, the washing machine, etc.
The fact that they won't return her daughter to her after "losing" her son, and after seeing her grief, shows how very evil they are.

Wasn't the washing machine repairman a pedophile? The mother calls him right when they get to the grandmother's? She dresses William in unmistakable clothing--makes sure to pack the Spiderman costume for their 2 day visit...tells William to go see if Daddy;s car is around the house (when she knows it's not--she just needs to get William to go around the house so the abductor can see him_, and oops she hears a sharp scream and then nothing (because the abductor covered William's mouth with his hand.
She did it.
And this is coming from someone who still refuses to believe 100 percent that the Ramsey's had anything to do with Jon Benet's death bc I am not convinced by their language. I hear in this mother's language and in the details what I do not hear in the Ramsey's language. I can "hear" that the mother "set him up" to be grabbed by the pedo abductor and yes I am sure she got money for doing it.

Me said...

I can't even stand looking at the foster mother's slobbering sniffles, fake grief and thin, emotionaless lips as she clutches Little Tara.

Her "grief" is hollow. There is nothing there.

Compare that to the bio mother's all-encompassing grief.

Heart-wrenching.

Unknown said...

I watched the 3 videos someone here posted of '60 minutes'. One strange thing is, as their house is on a dead end street, who would go drive there and then take William? If this is not the pedo handy man who knew William was there? The detective says abduction of unknown to abductor young children is rare.
I also notice that the foster mother is a drama queen, meaning, she comes across to me like very fake and enjoying the attention and sympathy she gets. I could be wrong about her as this is my feeling. She doesnt feel right to me. What kind of person is she?

Unknown said...

To Me @ 2:32, April 18: yes, the foster mother's grief feels fake to me, not genuine, not from the heart. I agree with you there!

Me said...

Unknown,

I believe it was the pedo handyman that did it and I believe the mother set it up.

You ask "why kind of person is she?"

You are correct--she enjoys the attention much like a munchausen by proxy Mom. Even her fake sentimentality for "Little Tara" reminds me so much of Munchausen by Proxy Moms. She probably viewed William much like she views "Little Tara"--as an object that can get her attention. Her histrionics do not match her emotional affect.

I wanted to also bring to the attention of this board that I just read in a comment on a youtube video that Chris Watts has very recently been diagnosed with Dependant Personality Disorder in jail. I diagnosed him with DPD weeks ago and shared that on this site. All these personality disorders are in essence offshoots of NPD, but please note that I diagnosed him with Dependant Personality Disorder long before trained psychiatrists did. I hope that that will get people to believe things I say. Including about TB. I am not a dumb person or crazy and I have been telling the truth about everything about TB including that he is innocent.

Anonymous said...

William's foster father about the frantic search for William that morning:

'I was thinking so many things at once, I need to cover as much ground as I can in the shortest possible time.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6845879/William-Tyrrells-foster-mothers-harrowing-triple-zero-call-vanished-replayed-court.html

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

Good link Autumn thanks. The daily mail article has a good timeline at the bottom of it which is good to have.

This is from the video of the fathers walk through of what he did to look for William.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6845879/William-Tyrrells-foster-mothers-harrowing-triple-zero-call-vanished-replayed-court.html

2m 10 seconds in:

Police: You`ve checked that doll house over there?

Father: Absolutely. Went through there (pointing finger), went through there (pointing finger), went underneath their house (neighbours house), went around their house. Went in there, went, went in, went in there, there umm, cause they weren’t home. I went in there umm, in their carport. They’ve got a caravan in there that’s all locked away. I went in there and checked (interrupted by Police)

Police: The caravan was locked?

Father: err, caravan was locked, yeah, absolutely.

If we look at the fathers sensitivity we see it spikes when he begins to talk of going into the neighbours carport. Up until then he is talking methodically and stutter free. If you listen to the video it is obvious the father is struggling to get his words to come out which shows he has a high cognitive load at that moment. If you watch that section you will see the father starts brushing his sleeve down while speaking. In body language it is called “brushing it off”.

When the Police officer Interrupts him to ask if the caravan was locked the father answers and at the same time moves his hand to his face. If he covered his mouth (Pixelated) it could signal dishonesty in his words.

If we combine the sensitivity, stuttering and body language we have a cluster of information which could point to deception.

Also as quoted in the daily mail article the officer asked William's foster father if knowing that he was not being watched by 'mummy and daddy' would stop him from walking away from the property. The father answers:

“Na, he'd give it a shot”

His answer conflicts all his and his wife’s previous statements in which we are told William is not a wanderer etc..

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

Adrian, yes, I had noticed that. I wondered: is that where they hid William? In the caravan? It's a bit far fetched maybe (the neighbour would have to be in on it as well) and the sniffer dogs would have smelt him.

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

Yeah it does seem farfetched he might be sensitive to telling a Police officer he`s been in someone else’s carport but for some reason it seems over the top.

Looking at the timeline all I can say is that if William had had an accident it could have been covered and his body disposed of. It would mean the father would have done so on his trip to the chemist.

Photo 9:45:

If we say the first time reference in the timeline is the photo 9:45am then we can build off that.

The father:

We are told the father leaves at 9:15am to go to chemist/Skype meeting. There is no evidence to corroborate that so we can’t do anything with it. Police confirmed he was at the chemists but we don’t know the time. The drive is eleven minutes one way to the town he went to. A quote from the fathers Police interview:

“I immediately got out of the car and started looking around, and within 5 minutes we raised the alarm”

Emergency call 10:56

If we believe the fathers quote then the Police were informed five minutes after his arrival. That puts him arriving back at the house at 10:45.

We believe William was alive at 9:45.

The mother:

“And I look at that picture and I just think, minutes, minutes, and our world has changed.”

She tells us “minutes” after the picture was taken is when her world changed. So we have the possibility something happened to William within minutes which means it could have happened before 10:00. The father in the Police interview offers 10:15 for the last time William was seen even though we don’t expect him to offer a time, because allegedly he wasn’t even there then. We expect him to offer the time he last saw William.

If William had an accident and a decision was made to cover it by the parents then there is a window of opportunity available to do so. The father after an accident could drive to town stopping on his way to hide the body. He makes sure he is seen at the chemist which gives him an alibi for his journey. The drive is only 11 minutes each way so there would be time to do other things.

This would account for the sensitivity about his meeting:

“then D came back, [because] he had a meeting.”

“D had an [appointment] which is not [unusual], he works remotely”

I don’t really know where to go with this case anymore. If we had access to the original Police interviews from the time of William going missing, which would include the grandmothers we might find something more. Also more details of where the dogs went during the search and a more detailed timeline (for instance what time was father at chemist) would help.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

Giving up so quickly, Clarice?

Hey Jude said...

William joined the family later, as an add-on to his sister, who they already had fostered for some time. It appears evident in places, that the foster mother didn’t find William quite boyish enough. She said she put him into a tree, knowing he did not want to climb, or even be, in a tree.

Worth a wonder? Was William yelling ‘Rah rah!’ whilst playing ‘Daddy Tiger’ with his daddy (who was not there at the time) - or was he misheard or misquoted, and really yelling ‘Ta-ra!’ Because he wanted his doll back?

I expect that the Spider-Man outfit and Spider-Man doll were encouragements away from Little Tara. William’s foster father said he always, or mostly always had the Spider-Man doll, while the foster mother said he couldn’t sleep without Little Tara - father said he ‘always asked’ for Little Tara. William could not sleep without her, yet he also ‘always asked’ for Little Tara, Why did he need to ask for his favourite comfort toy? Was he not allowed it? If the Spideman doll was given to replace Little Tara, William persisted in wanting the Little Tara doll.

The foster mother said disparaging things like: That wasn’t William. William didn’t have it in him. He would have been too scared. etc. Maybe her belief was that William would boy-up if she weaned him off Little Tara, dressed him in a Spider-Man outfit and put him into a tree.

Interesting, even when speaking positively about something suitably boyish he was good at - riding his bike, she described him as having “unbridled joy” rather than simply that he was full of joy, or so joyful. Maybe he was not supposed to like his bike quite so much - maybe he preferred it over another gift? Maybe she was grudging of his pleasure? Cycling was something they all did together, and William seems to have liked his foster father.

Well, what, in contrast, would ‘bridled joy’ look like? I think it would look like someone trying not to look quite so joyful as they really were.

Why is William’s joy described as ‘unbridled joy’? I find that of interest because he was only three - I’d think more joy, sheer joy, utter joy - but there is this negative sounding unbridled joy’, as if there could also have been a joy in William which was at other times bridled, or to the foster mother’s view, should have been? IDK - maybe it doesn’t mean either.

She commented that William looked differently in photos taken by the foster father -and she noted the difference in his demeanour. Was she jealous, or resentful that William preferred his foster father?

I’m confident in saying that the foster mother has a negative linguistic disposition towards William.

———

I thought it so sad when she said their daughter has had to learn how to be an only child, and how to play on her own - sounds as if William’s sister now has no contact with her biological mother or with her and William’s younger siblings. Whatever they tell her, she’s not an only child.





Hey Jude said...

Adrian, look at the number of times they say this or that was normal, usual etc - it’s quite a few, indicating not normal or usual.

frommindtomatter said...

Hey Jude, you say some interesting things in your post, some different angles to examine.

I was also drawn to the mothers use of unbridled as well. I also expected something like “pure joy” or something similar to describe a three year olds happiness. What is clear from all the interviews is that the mother is intelligent and manipulative. She does 80% of the talking (possibly more) and she controls the narrative. She had the 60 minutes interviewer in tears on a number of occasions. She may be too smart for her own good though as she has conflicted her statement’s in places. She is good at pulling on heartstrings and tells a good story but in sensitive areas she uses a lot of extra words, “just” being her favourite. Also she likes to tell you what she thought rather than what she was doing all too often. Oh and she doesn’t simply say “I thought” but “I just thought”.

I think any father (foster or otherwise) would be pretty angry if he believed someone had abducted his child but there is no anger there at all. I believe his wife controls him with emotional manipulation; he certainly is not a strong character.

I don’t think I have come across any words from either of them to suggest they take any blame for Williams disappearance. That is very strange because a parent always blames themselves to some degree if anything happens to their child. So we have two people who feel totally blame free and constantly talk about what William wouldn’t do and what he`s not.

I agree regarding the use of normal, usual, unusual etc.. Their statements are riddled with that type of language.

For me it all comes down to the timeline of the father, what time did he leave the house that morning? Only the family truly knows, but if we had a definite time for when he was seen at the chemists (or wherever the police have confirmed him being) we would have something to work from.

I am working on the photograph and the language the mother uses in the 60 minutes interview about taking it. There might be something there to show the father there at 9:45.

Adrian.

Hey Jude said...

He really threw a spanner in the works when he said there was some confusion as to whether William might have gone with him, when she’d already said William was playing outside while the foster father was out - they don’t have a straight story between them.

I don’t feel much sympathy for the foster mother - the father at least seemed to have liked William. I find it’s difficult to be objective - how do you manage to lose a three year old in the back garden? It was weeks before she remembered there were (supposedly) suspicious cars parked outside, which only she saw. Neighbours said they didn’t see any other cars on the street, and that they would have remembered if they had - anyone who doesn’t belong there would be noticed.

Yes, I see my harking on them being foster parents - that’s probably only since I saw William’s real mother’s interview. There were comments on here, on an unrelated post, about William’s disappearance, probably a couple of years ago - can’t find them now - would have been interesting to compare, as that was maybe before it was known they were foster parents.

I don’t think the paedophile theory works - wasn’t the neighbour convicted of offences against older children, who were girls?

——

Did the mother say William was picked up by the shoulders and ‘moved along’ ? I think that’s how she put it - difficult foster children get moved along, normally by child services, to a new placement.

Hey Jude said...

There’s no mention of any of them having breakfast, though it was quite late - William is barefoot, and the Spider-Man outfit looks like pyjamas.

The police established the photo was taken at 9.45am, I believe. I’d like to suspect that one or other messed with the time stamp, and that William disappeared earlier than breakfast would have been, if it had been a normal day. Well, breakfast doesn’t feature - two little kids are not likely to go out to play before they’ve had breakfast, and the foster father was not likely to go out for a meeting and to run errands before breakfast - yet there’s no mention of anyone eating anything, only of the foster mother going inside to make a cup of tea. But there, the photo was taken at 9.45 am, so either they omitted to mention breakfast, or they didn’t have any? Seems odd, only because it wa quite late in the morning, the kids were supposedly already dressed and outside playing. In the photo, William’s sister might be wearing a dressing gown or bathrobe, William might be wearing pyjamas - he’s barefoot - yet he was meant to be running round playing in the garden then, just his foster mother went in to make a cup of tea?

Hey Jude said...

‘Moved on’, I think she said William was moved on. A strange thing to say if she had nothing with which to back it up. Then again, she also said all the birds stopped singing, and that William was nowhere, so her relationship with reality was none too strong at the time.


Hey Jude said...

Maybe they kept on about the Spider-Man outfit so much because really it was his pyjamas, and they had all slept in, and he disappeared in hIs pyjamas past an hour where it would have seemed reasonable to not be dressed - that might have seemed extra negligent, if that were possible.

Me said...

Hey Jude, You raise excellent points. Thank God you are part of this blog.

They very well could have messed with the timestamp on the pic. Also really look at the pic. Why isn’t he more centered in the pic? It is if her mind is elsewhere while taking the pic. There is a sinister vibe to the picture.

Me said...

Also the photographer would have had to have been lying on the floor to take that pic & yet William is looking up at someone else seemingly not even seeing the camera or photographer at ground level riggt in front of his face.

Me said...

Can someone enlarge William’s eyes in that pic to see what or who is reflected in them? I tried to and I cant tell what it is. Also, it looks like whatever he is looking at (from the angle of his eyes) is higher than adult face level. It looks like he is looking at something in a tree or somwthing high.

Anonymous said...

Assuming William died of an accident at Nanna's home, I actually feel sympathy for the foster parents. In that case it’s not like they coldly and premeditatedly caused him to die (à la Chris Watts i.m.o.). Accidents do happen and sometimes they result in horrendous consequences. In that case, was it wrong to cover up? Yes, very much so. First and foremost towards the birth parents and siblings. However, this decision was likely taken in a moment of extreme distress and in overwhelming fear of losing their foster daughter as well (and it may have taken them years of pain and heartache to get children). Once they were on the path of cover up, there was no turning back. Confessing now would surely have criminal consequences and cause nationwide anger and face loss. I'm sure the cover up-path is ultimately much more painful for them than if they had immediately told the truth. I don't think the foster mother is some cold, heartless "foster monster" or "batshit crazy". She said that when she made the emergency call she kept telling herself: “Keep it together, keep it together.” I think that’s what she was and is trying to do: keep the family together. I feel sorry for her (all the more because I think she's the one who may have caused (or failed to prevent) what happened to William).

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

I have something for consideration. Part 1.

This is regarding the 9:45 Photo of William taken the morning of his disappearance.

We know from the mothers statement that William disappeared close to the time of the photo being taken.

“And I look at that picture and I just think, [minutes, minutes], and our world has changed”

I mentioned in an earlier post she said:

“[We] were just, [I] was out there talking with my mum and my other daughter so..”

A pronoun change representing either another person was with her, or a conscious decision to move from unity with the group. I wanted to explore this and use something that we know is credible as a reference. We would have to consider that if she did cover the “we” due to another person being present, that person would most likely be the father. So at approximately 9:45 the family is on the deck and pictures are taken, the question then is who was on the deck?

Please view the link below and scroll down to the picture of William on the deck.

https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/the-day-william-tyrrell-vanished/news-story/c3b76e8d4fc18401ebc17df61f45a62d

You will clearly see there is William, his sister and the grandmother (her leg and foot in sight). We believe the mother takes the picture as her language connects her to the act, but there is something strange. I think it would be fair to say that if someone was asked to describe the picture they would say that the photographer took a low down and square on picture of William, and that William was fixated on something high up and to the left of the photographer. If you look at the picture I am sure that is the conclusion you will come to. What is interesting is the mothers words relating to the taking of said photograph. See below her 60 minutes statement relating to it.

Interviewer: That great photo of William in his Spiderman suit that was taken on the deck.

Mother: It was [really weird] cause he was, he was doing rah daddy tiger. And that photo I took was umm, he was [actually] looking up at me and I [sort of] crouched down in a [really weird] position and taken the photo, and umm, it was mid roar which is why his mouths wide open.

The interviewer doesn’t ask a question about the photograph but introduces it to highlight William, the scene and the moment it captured. He tells the mother it is a “great photo”. The mother is free to say what she likes about the photograph and I expect her to mirror the sentiments of the interviewer by telling us how wonderful the picture is, but we find her statement is based around the taking of the picture. The first thing she thinks of in connection to the picture is not how happy he was etc.. But rather how “weird” it was.

“It was [really weird]”

“he was [actually] looking up at me”

“I [sort of] crouched down in a [really weird] position”

see Part 2.

frommindtomatter said...

Part 2.

She tells us it was [weird] and if we look at it from the perspective of her taking the picture and being told William is looking at her then it would be weird, because that is not the impression someone would get from looking at picture. Also she feels we should know that William was [actually] looking at her and not someone/somewhere else. Finally she tries to explain how she managed to take such a weird picture. I see from her a need to convince why the picture looks the way it does, in her own words “weird”. Like I said her connection to that photo shown from the words that spring to her mind is not sentiment related, as we expect “he looked so happy” or something along those lines but rather focuses on a need to explain it.

Was William looking up at his father when the photo was taken?

As picked up on by many here we know there is great sensitivity related to the alleged Skype meeting the father had. It is related in two ways. First there is a need to convince that it is normal for him to have such meetings and second that he returned because of a meeting.

“then D came back, [because] he had a meeting”

“D had an appointment which is not [unusual], he works remotely.”

What I have said regarding the photograph could place him at the scene minutes before an accident.

Adrian.

Me said...

From Mind to Matter,

Interesting observations!

One thought I had--I believe the person who took the photo had to have been lying on the ground, probably resting with their arms in front of them holding the phone/camera, with elbows on the ground (which would explain the way that in the uncropped version, William is so off-center). You don't have really any leeway to move the camera around if elbows are on the ground. I actually picture a young person--teens or early twenties, maybe early 30's laying down like that to take a picture. I remember my youngest sibling, who is an artist, when she was in her early twenties, photographing nieces and nephews like that and I remember thinking to myself "it's a lot easier to just jump into that position laying on the ground to take a photo when you are young and it would make me remember that I am actually 10 yrs older then her.

With you saying that William is probably looking up at his father...yes that makes sense...since he clearly seems to be playing the Daddy roar game. Which as you pointed out, he was playing seconds before he "disappeared". One additional observation I have is that I wonder if Daddy had something raised over his head? Was he lifting a stick, bat, etc up over his head and did he then strike William with it? Because William seems to me to be looking up at an angle that would go higher than adult face level and he also has some type of almost fear in his eyes...like a fear or wariness that is just setting in.

Me said...

Oh my God.

Google William Tyrell Spiderman and hit "images".

Why the hell are there 2 different pictures of him in the exact same pose (EXACT) but reversed? And in slightly different locations (in one the table in the background is on the left of him--in another the table is on the right)?

That appears to be an image of William taken in the Daddy roar pose taken in another location and then "pasted" onto the deck picture!!! It appears also that they have it on software that can digitally alter the image of William to have him strike the same pose but in reverse! And when they do that it goes onto the other side of the table! How did cops not notice that?!?!?! They seem to have released both images to the media! Please look at the images!!!

It looks like they tried out 2 different ways when they were pasting it onto the background of the deck!

It's right there on the internet--the 2 different reversed images of him on the deck!!!!

WTF!!!!!

frommindtomatter said...

I think the images are the same picture but they have been mirrored in Photoshop or similar software. Probably done by the tabloids for some reason.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

AUDIO_2GB_9_Chris Smith talks to William Tyrrell’s parents_September 18, 2015

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

5m 25s

“I went back down with one of the neighbours and we kept looking and we kept looking. Down to the back, the bus stop and back, all through the houses, and then I thought OK I`ve got to call 000. And that’s when I went [back upstairs] and I made that call.”

The above is part of her description concerning looking for William. What I found interesting is she tells us she went [back upstairs] to make the call. She doesn’t even mention arriving back at grandmothers house. This suggests her last position before leaving the house was upstairs as she was going to go “back” there.

This has got me thinking. What if William had an accident and they hid his body in the house perhaps upstairs or how about in a cupboard. Below a quote from Police interview:

“M: It was in my head and [even] Mum, while I was talking with Mum while we were waiting and I was doing the [frantic thing] and running through the house and opening up cupboards and [all sorts of stuff]”

I don’t think the Police would have searched inside the house, maybe they went in there to talk to the family, but if the body was upstairs well hidden they would not discover it. I don’t think the dogs would have entered the house as obviously there would be Williams scent there and the narrative was he had disappeared outside. The mother would have made it clear she had done the “frantic thing” and that he was not in the house, so the search would have moved away from the house. The father in the video walk through interview tells the Police officer that he was in the cubs, scouts and venturers among other groups, and said he was savvy at searching. I bet he would know a trick or two on how to cover tracks/ scent.

Adrian.

Hey Jude said...


Foster mother:


“It was a semi trailer coming down the road really fast. And he thought I pulled over, because he acknowledged me by saying thanks for pulling over. But I pulled over ‘cause I’ve just got my head out the window, you know, looking for William,” she said.
“And then I drive really slow on Moore, and I get to the Riding School and I just think, he’s not here.
“And I just drive out and I think, he’s not here. And then I bring the car back up. And I just run out and I look for him again.”

———

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/crime/william-tyrrells-foster-mum-recounts-desperate-search-for-missing-boy-in-newly-released-video/news-story/c785efb1ae0d0864af718ca48b6775a6


Anonymous said...

I had also seen that video (on dailymail.co.uk) and wondered: is she describing what happened to William? But then the below excerpt (from The Australian) seemed to point to a fall from a tree again. They apparently had taken photos of William in trees before, see here.

“We were playing Mummy Monsters. I was being a monster, and he was catching me,” she said. “William was doing ‘raar’ to me, and I was doing it back to him. We were running, slipping on loose leaves and twigs that had fallen off the trees.”

‘It’s too quiet’

Her dad had been the one to sweep the leaves, she said poignantly; now he was dead, they were piling up. She spotted a tree with what she described as “good climbing potential”. Shaking off melancholy, she hoisted William up, but he said: “No, Mummy, too high.”


Is it likely that the foster mother put William so high up in a tree that a fall would cause him to die, though? He would have probably fallen on the (soft) grass and leaves(?) All in all, I think a car accident is maybe more likely. All the more because the foster mother brings up a car in all the pivotal moments of her story. For instance she says that around 9 AM that morning William’s sister (who was riding her bike on the driveway) pointed to a third car and said: 'Mummy, who's that car?'. The foster mother said she answered: “I don't know, I don't know whose car it is.' Is she unwittingly signalling: “The question whose car “took” William is important (it may not have been daddy’s car)? Another example: she supposedly asked William just around the time he “disappeared”: Can you see Daddy’s car?”. She said William didn’t answer. Was it not daddy’s car? Did William fail to see the car? Could the driver not see William? In fact even the start of her story – the drive to Kendall on Thursday evening – might be a subconscious prelude to a fatal car accident: a car picked William up, he was screaming, the car stopped on the way, William was “over the moon” (as in: in heaven):

M: None, none, they were over the moon, we told them in the car once we picked them up.

(…)

M: And they were screaming with delight, because we get to do something special, which is stop at McDonalds on the way which we don’t normally do. It was just an adventure, a family going to see family.


Autumn

Anonymous said...

Statement by the foster parents on Sept 20, 2014

“William is only three years and three-months-old and really still a baby, he has so many more years to live and we desperately want him home. William up until a month ago was obsessed with all things Fire Engine and would tell us his name was “Firefighter William”… a future he deserves to fulfil.

To the residents of Benaroon Drive: Within minutes of hearing that William was missing everyone came out and helped with the search, we were amazed at how quickly you came to help. Thank you. We would also like to say a big thank you for your patience and co-operation with Police in the search for little William.

To the Police: As well as William loving all things Fire Engines and Fire Fighters he was also enamoured by the Police and he would have been beside himself to see the amount of Police Cars and Police officers at Nana’s house. And also, like all little boys, he would have been asking you about your guns! We know how hard you have all been working – your dedication to finding little William has astounded us and we, from the bottom of our hearts, say “thank you so much”; it has given us strength and hope that William will be returned to us soon. We also want to thank those of you who we have got to know for your personal support and commitment to the search for William.

To the SES: We have seen you day and night searching for William; even when we couldn’t sleep at 3am we saw you walking around with torches and driving the cars. We thank you deeply and we know that for each and every one of you “it’s more than just a job”.
To the Surf Life Saving & RFS: Thank you for taking the time away from your families and your other volunteering efforts.

To the Kendall community: You are amazing, every day we would hear how many volunteers had shown up at the showground and every day the numbers got bigger. People had taken time off work, we saw a lady pushing a pram and holding a baby on her front walking looking for William, we saw a man walking his push bike looking for William, and we saw everyday people just like us in the bush and on the road looking for our little boy. And every day – all through the day – people were dropping off food and drinks to support the searchers.
Thank you so much! You should feel very proud of yourselves and the community.

Finally we wish to reinforce that if anyone has seen or heard anything (no matter how insignificant it may be) to contact the Police.

We pray and hope that our “firefighter William” comes home soon.”


https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/the-family-of-missing-boy-william-tyrell-thank-searchers-in-kendall-as-they-hope-and-pray-he-comes-home-soon/news-story/a47af4ff4bce5ea98e14ed48f39615b8?nk=3315a4af7413401e7c9df72e23eb30dd-1555785297

Autumn

Anonymous said...

According to comments on this website the sniffer dogs lost William's scent at the top of the driveway (source: facebook post by a local):

http://mydeathspace.com/vb/showthread.php?29123-William-Tyrrell-3-Missing-From-His-Grandma-s-Front-Verandah-Mid-North-Coast-NSW

Autumn

Anonymous said...

From the “where is william” website (http://www.whereswilliam.org):

“Please don’t give up on our boy. Don’t give up on bringing William home. Never say never. Where there is a chance that someone might come forward, there is hope that we all have the chance to bring William home.”

William’s Daddy


Autumn

Anonymous said...

In two statements made to police after William’s disappearance, the foster mother said on the morning in question she slipped and grazed her right hand while playing with William outside the Benaroon Drive house.

She had offered for William to play in “a cool climbing tree” but he had refused and got “worried” and when she tired of spinning them around, they returned inside.

After more games, William had become bored and “jumped off the side of the patio” and said “daddy tiger”.

When he fell quiet and the foster mother could not find him she told her mother, “I can’t see William” and her mother replied, “Oh, the little devil”.


https://www.goldcoastbulletin.com.au/news/national/william-tyrrells-birth-family-says-they-felt-under-suspicion-for-years/news-story/5153a7edd5222a1f8e16c5f23b7d7bad?nk=3315a4af7413401e7c9df72e23eb30dd-1555813918

Another possibility: William jumped/fell off the veranda. According to the foster mother they were on the patio, William "jumped off", turned right and went around the corner (see also 60 minutes interview). The large veranda is accessible via the grass near the patio (on the right), see for example at the beginning of the video of the foster father. However, when you go "around the corner" the veranda is all of a sudden quite high due to the fact that Nana's house is situated on a steep hill (see photo's of the back of the house on google).

The foster mother told the court Nana had thought William too “hyperactive, boisterous” in his play immediately before he vanished (victim blaming?). See: https://www.news.com.au/national/courts-law/inside-the-william-tyrrell-inquest/news-story/d0e0d3664d113387adef9083d094040f

Autumn

Me said...

I get an eerie feeling when I see documentaries with the camera pointed from the street towards the grandmother's house/yard that somebody "abducted" him.

Even after doing SA and spotting the mother's involvement I still got that feeling. It is a strong feeling...some sort of vertigo involved.

I have been troubled my whole life by picking up on energy that is in places. Something happened in the yard. Someone got out of a car and took him.

Mommy Crazy dearest sold him I believe.

Is it truly a coincidence she called the perv washing machine repair man shortly before William disappeared and SA is picking up on a shitload of deception and guilty knowledge in her words?

I don't think so.

Me said...

I think her tree climbing game is retarded, Daddy roar game is stupid, Mommy Monster so dumb---those aren't normal games to play...it sounds like she enjoyed scaring him. You don't put a 3 year old high in a tree and tell him to climb. Seriously WTF.

She is narcissistic. Her tawdry and irritating expressions like "William was screaming with delight", William felt "unbridled joy" when he road a bide, oh and God the Daddy roar expression all speak to her overdramatization, her puppetizing of William.

She's a fake mother, narcissist, sees William as a doll that does and says ("screams with delight") when she pulls the string.

She is a sick woman.

Shall we go inside her mind to see what happened to William?

Was William supposed to "perform" for the grandmother by "posing" in the tree "screaming with delight" while Mummy snapped a pic? And William was just entering an age where he could object to things. BPD Mommy might not have liked that since she views him as a prop and her view of him switches from good to bad if he doesn't do what she wants (or for many other reasons) and sometimes may not switch back to good.

William is her puppet.

He "screams with delight" upon riding a bike.
(Picture a marionette making the motions and sounds that she wants while she controls the strings).

He plays her fake little games that express her internal BPD like "Mummmy Monster" "Daddy R0ar"---you can see her thinking--there is black and while, 0 and 1,plus and minus, no inbetween and it is all an act.

What happened after Mummy took that off-center photo of William doing "Daddy Roar"? WAs it then "Tree Time"--time for William to pose precariously on a tree limb while Mummy Monster snapped a photo. William did not want to do that. So what did Mummy Monster do next? What would have made a cool photo? Her dangling him over the balcony like Michael Jackson. Kidding. Not kidding.

Think.

Me said...

William's bio father has lost his mind over this.

I read that he literally is crazy now, buys presents, hoards toys, smokes ICE all day,talks to himself and is heartbroken over losing William, he thinks William is dead and went into the bush shoveling frantically all over trying to find him :(

Me said...

I get a bad vibe off of the foster Dad too, and I really wonder why he fostered the kids in the first place. He speaks harshly to William at his b day party. He seems so slimey when he is babbling to the reporter right after William went missing about where he looked blah blah blah. And it's all such bullshit.

He mentions:

WATER

He mentions:

GRAVEYARD

GEE, does he use the word "DOOR" too? I didn't notice.

He probably took William somewhere--raped him and killed him.

Ultimately I don't think Little Tara did it, or Mummy Crazy Dearest, or grandmother, or mystery abductors. He didn't fall on his head, slip on a twig playing Daddy roar with Mummy, fall off a cliff, or get run over by a car.

I think the Spiderman photo was staged and I thought that from the instant I first saw it. A man probably took the pic bc a woman would have tried to center it better, but since it is staged I guess whoever took it thought the background was just as important as William in order to put him in a specific location at a specific time.

I believe the foster father did it.
Everything else is way too farfetched.
I think the mother knows what the foster Dad did and she is covering for him.
And I think the foster father did bury him in a the graveyard.

The Spidey photo was staged.

Me said...

The foster father literally says right after mentioning WATER

"I went down to the graveyard (to look for William)".

WE need to start looking very closely at his language.

He did it and he tells us he did.

Why aren;t we listening?

frommindtomatter said...

I think the 60 minutes interview is the best source for information. We are told literally how it played out. The basic breakdown is:

William is on the deck playing.

William jumps off deck and goes round the corner. – We note he [jumps off] and goes round the side of the house which would lead him to the front of the house if he continues his course. That he “jumps off” suggests he was excited.

Father: “They [always] run to the gate when were at home and their looking out for me and my car”

At the parents’ house they “always” run to the gate to greet their father. At grandmothers there is no gate it is an open driveway.

Mother: “And I remember saying can you see Daddys car, and there was no answer, there was no answer”

William jumps off the deck and runs round the corner, the mother asks can you see daddys car and there is no answer. We said this before but it seems obvious that Williams motivation was to greet his father who he heard arriving in his car. The father offered us the statement regarding the children “always” [running] to meet him, we didn’t ask but it was something he needed to tell us.

The mother goes round to look for William but he wasn’t there. She gives many references to him being “gone”, “not there” which could be interpreted as he was not conscious/alive.

In her statement she next goes from being outside to being in the house.

“I just, I just kept racing round the house going where are you, you, [talk to me], where are you. And I couldn’t see him and I couldn’t hear him…... and I just didn’t know where he was”

If she had Williams body in her arms as she was running round the house and he was unconscious or dead it would make sense that she would be saying to him “talk to me” and referencing that she couldn’t see or hear him because he would have been not present in a conscious way. He would have been somewhere else.

After realising all was lost and there was nothing that they could do they hid his body. Think of Madeleine McCann, the body was there and disposed of later. It wasn’t found in the search because no one was looking in the obvious place, in the apartment itself. Williams body was either hid in the house or possibly wrapped airtight in plastic and hidden in the next door neighbour’s carport in a caravan. The neighbours were “away”. If the body was airtight sealed and carried by the father in that state I don’t think there would have been a scent to follow. William would not have been in there on foot. The body was disposed of later when an opportunity arose.

The parents literally tell us what has happened and supply us with extra information to connect the dots. The father lets us know they run to the gate to greet him and the mother asks William if he can see daddys car, the next thing William is “gone”.

Adrian.

frommindtomatter said...

What opinions do others have regarding the mothers use of “here” and “there” in the Police interview?

M: [You] wake up and it’s just, it’s just always [here]. [You] go about your normal day; it’s just always [there]. It’s [your] never, [it’s] never away from [you], it’s constant.

The whole statement is full of distance lacking the pronoun “I”. We have “you” and “your” used in its place. The word “here” stands out in opposition to the others. I would have expected “there” to have been used instead of “here”. I expect it to be always “there” so what would bring it closer?

The mother is talking about waking up in her home not the grandmothers as the Police interview was 7 months or so after Williams disappearance. So why when she wakes up is it “here”, why is it so close to her when she wakes up?

It’s [your] never, [it’s] never away from [you]

She almost says “your never away from it” but reverses her words. Your never away from it would suggest a personal desire to get away from “it”.

I want to offer a theory and it is not based off the above language but it does work with it. The above could represent fear or guilt, but why is it in two places, here and there?

If William met with an accident and his body was hidden on the grandmothers property until the search was over, at some stage his body would have to be disposed of. William could have been loaded into the trunk of the car and taken back to the family home and later buried on the family property. I have read of many crimes where bodies were recovered from a murderer’s property. In most cases it was due to the crime being committed there. It is much easier and safer for a murderer to do so because they don’t have to transport and dispose of the body in a remote location and then worry if it will ever be found. If it is kept on their property they know exactly where it is. There is little risk of them being seen as they are working in their own environment/property and know who or what problems can arise. A body found in the woods could provide evidence which could implicate a murderer, but if the body is never found that is not a problem.

My theory is based on the premise that the body would have been kept on the grandmothers property till the searches were over. Taking William home would be the safest option, no need to drive out somewhere remote digging holes and risk being seen. Also this was an accident and I believe the parents loved him and were devastated by what happened so to bury him out in the middle of nowhere would not sit well with them.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

There is a site called mydeathspace.com where people posted updates on the case as early as Sept 15, 2014 based on a.o. facebook messages from the NSW Police Force and local and national newspapers. Most updates are posted by someone nicknamed "blighted star". Blighted star – who, judging by his/her posts, kept checking police’s messages – commented on Sept 28, 2014 that police:
- said they assessed the date on the family phones including the Spiderman photo on the first day;
- said the foster father’s errand checked out;
- searched through the cars more than once; and
- definitely went through the house from the roof cavity to the foundations several times.

So police searched Nana’s house multiple times from top to bottom. It doesn’t say whether they did so on the first day, but that would seem most obvious to me. Police had sniffer dogs on the scene that same afternoon –> wouldn’t it be standard procedure to rule out the house first and subsequently widen the search? In that case it’s less likely that William was hidden in the house.

A neighbour heard children’s voices (multiple) at Nana’s place around 9AM that day (according to the foster mother their breakfast consisted of Yakult…). So assumedly William was still alive by then. Police assessed the Spiderman photo on the day of William’s disappearance and said it was taken within an hour of his disappearance (I’ve read: 9:37 AM). Would the parents – who were described by neighbours as hysterical, devastated and frantic – have been thinking so far ahead that they tampered with that photo within hours of an accidental death of their son? It’s possible I guess, but not entirely obvious.

The foster dad went into town that morning to make a Skype call. He said he left at around 9:15AM. He also went to the chemists. According to the foster mother William disappeared at around 10:30AM. She said she subsequently called her husband whereupon he raced back to Nana’s house. That would mean the foster father arrived back home somewhere between 10:40 and 10:56AM. Police have said the foster father was where he said he was. Since it was 2014, I assume that police checked the above timeline based on cell tower information, possible CCTV footage from the chemist and surrounding shops (street camera’s) and possible witnesses. If so, that makes the scenario that William was hit by the foster father’s car upon return unlikely because that would leave them 15/16 minutes at most between the accident and the triple 0 call (and the police arrived at 11:06AM). Almost impossible to cover anything up. Maybe William was hit by the family’s car when the foster father departed at around 9:15 AM (in that case the photo must have been tampered with) or by the foster mother (or Nana) in Nana’s car. Or he may have fallen of a tree or the veranda or something.

I don't think that William’s motivation to "jump off" and run "around the corner" – if he did that at all – was necessarily to greet his father. As I said before, I think the mother saying “Can you see daddy’s car” is possibly a fabrication to push the abduction narrative (as it implies William may have walked to the street where he could possibly be snatched away). However, I think people sometimes reveal something about the truth when they fabricate. This phrase could be an indication (leak) that William was hit by a car because the driver could not see William and/or William did not see the car.


Autumn

Anonymous said...

The link in my previous post doesn't work:

http://mydeathspace.com/vb/showthread.php?29123-William-Tyrrell-3-Missing-From-His-Grandma-s-Front-Verandah-Mid-North-Coast-NSW/page3

Autumn

Anonymous said...

In the Chris Smith interview the foster mother said:

"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"

Does she mean there literally isn't any evidence anymore? Under the large veranda/porch at the back of Nana's house is something that resembles a large barrel. Could that be a septic tank? It's a harsh thing to say but could he have been hidden in there (although I suppose the police would have looked there too)? Burying at their own property wouldn't have been very smart i.m.o.

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

I have just starting looking at the mydeathspace now. Like you say the timing is the key with everything in this case. If the house was searched then that could rule it out, but there is the caravan in the neighbour’s car port that caused a lot of sensitivity to the father. If the body was airtight wrapped and carried over then hidden in the caravan could it of escaped detection.

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/william-tyrrells-birth-family-says-they-felt-under-suspicion-for-years/news-story/5153a7edd5222a1f8e16c5f23b7d7bad

The foster couple looking after William had planned to drive up on September 12, a Friday, in their new [green-grey] coloured 2014 Land Rover Discovery

“Around this time the foster mother saw a “dark [green-grey] sedan” drive up the street.”

The next morning, William suggested [racing] on his new bike, riding on the [path] off the driveway.

“William rode his bike down that same footpath and deliberately [crashed] his bike into the garden,” the foster mother told police.

William crashed his bike into the garden. Would that be a way of explaining any damage to the bike? I mentioned in an earlier post the mother in describing William and his bike said, “We have a picture of him riding [this] bike”, she could have said [that] bike or [his] bike but she brought it close to her with her choice of word. I listened to the whole Police interview at 50% speed so I could hear the words more clearly.

Now we see why the mother references kids running the streets without any fear in her previous statements. William a 3 year old was riding on the footpath next to the road, was he supervised? And the mother sees a car that just happens to be of similar colour to their new car. It says they [planned] to drive to grandmothers in the new car but we don’t know if they did or if they were in their old car. The colour would have been in her mind whichever way.

The father in the walkthrough interview never went down to the road to look for William as “you probably would have seen him in his bright clothes” if he was down there. That’s says a lot, him not going there tells us he had a reason not to. If you know your child goes down to the road to play (3 year old ridiculous) that is the first place you would want to check as it offers the most danger to them. The father didn’t seem to think it was worth looking there so we ask did he know that it wasn’t worth it because he knew it would be impossible for William to be there. Also we see distancing of a physical kind displayed by him as he wants to stay away from the road.

Adrian.

Me said...

Why would they cover up an accident?

Please don’t say “they didn’t want their other foster child taken away.”

Why was the father at the chemists?

Anonymous said...

Adrian, the foster father had just come back in his car via that same road and would therefore probably have seen William if he was on or beside the road. It’s interesting though that he says “you probably would have seen him “instead of “I probably would have seen him”.

There is no footpath next to Benaroon Drive. There is a footpath off the driveway that leads to the front door and a path next to the car port going to the back yard. But that's all on Nana's private property.

Interesting that their car has the same color as the ”third car”. Like I commented earlier: the glances the foster mother supposedly exchanged with the driver of that car may in reality have been the looks she exchanged with her husband. In the Chris Smith interview she says: "My husband had got home from his meeting. I said to him “Was William with you?” and he looked at me as if to say “What a really stupid question, of course he's not with me. Where is he.” Maybe what actually happened is: the father came home in his car, gives the mother angry looks and says something like: “How could you be so stupid!”.

The septic tank is also greenish of color, “weathered” and with “reddish” (rusty?) stains and "around the corner".

Autumn

Anonymous said...

“Me”, maybe the foster parents were afraid the birth parents would instigate a wrongful death claim. Maybe they were afraid authorities would instigate criminal charges based on involuntary manslaughter. Maybe they were ashamed or afraid of face loss. I don't know. Why do you write: "Please don’t say “they didn’t want their other foster child taken away.”" Don't you think the foster organization would have taken the foster daughter away if it turned out to be a fatal accident (possibly due to neglect)? Don't you think that could be a motive for cover up?

Autumn

Anonymous said...

I used to believe in statement analysis but sometimes it just seems like a witch hunt. She said I'm sorry because she didnt hear the operator. I always say I'm sorry if I didnt hear someone.

frommindtomatter said...

My Conclusion part 1

I have spent a lot of hours studying this case and the interviews and statements made by the parents. This has allowed me to combine what I have learned from those statements and apply that knowledge when analysing the sensitive questions and answers the parents were asked. Below is the most sensitive question from the Police interview where the mother recalls the moment of Williams disappearance. I will give some analysis on this statement and support it with what I have found in other statements.

One important thing I discovered was in the radio interview below. Listen from 5m 25s to 5m 45s.

AUDIO_2GB_9_Chris Smith talks to William Tyrrell’s parents_September 18, 2015

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

The mother after doing all the searching tells us she went [back upstairs] to make the call. This shows she returned to her point of origin prior to Williams disappearance. There has been much confusion over where the mother was at the time of Williams disappearance, some articles and her own words put her on the deck while others (the recent inquest) put her making a cup of tea which we would presume was done in the kitchen. Her telling us she went [back upstairs] gives us what I believe was her real location at that time. You will see how that is relevant in my analysis of the statement below.

P: When did things start to go awry?

M: Well, when I realised that William was missing, I just, I, I mean, I think back to that, that moment where I j[ust] went, I can’t hear him, [why, why, why] can’t I hear him, and I walked around, seriously it was just 2 metres, 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, 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, where are you?”, and he was nowhere, and I’m just, and I’m just standing there thinking, how could he just disappear because he just disappeared and I don’t get it, I don’t get it.

“I j[ust] went, I can’t hear him, [why, why, why] can’t I hear him”

She uses “just” to minimise her not being able to hear him. I believe she did hear something. It is usually a noise/sound rather than a lack of one which draws our attention to something. She repeats the words , [why, why, why] which shows massive sensitivity which would be connected to what she has heard.

“and I [walked around], seriously it was just 2 metres, 3 metres away from where we were sitting, and I’ve [just walked out]”

We see more minimising with “just” in relation to distance and also a need to convince with use of the word “seriously” but more important is she tells us “I walked around” this is a problem as I will show in a moment. By saying it she suggests she was outside and that she walked round the side of the house to where William was, and I would not have a problem with that except she goes back to emphasise her position again but this time says:

“I’ve [just walked out]”

When people make statements they may begin to give information but stop to interject with some extra details. This causes them to go back to where they were in their main story and re-pick up from that point. The mother told us she “walked around”, but when she added details about the distance and prior location it broke up the main story so she went back to where she was, but this time she makes a mistake she tells us “I’ve just walked out”. She uses “just” in this instance to minimise her actions. We know from her other statement she went “back upstairs” to make the emergency call, so when she tells us she” just walked out” she is minimising her actions by omitting that she came down the stairs before walking out.

Deception indicated.

Adrian

frommindtomatter said...

My conclusion part 2

“and I just see nothing. I see nothing, I hear nothing, I, I’m speechless.”

She tells us she sees nothing but we know she must have seen something. If she had said William wasn’t there she would be telling us what she saw through her words. I believe I now know what happened to William and what she is telling us is that she is looking at William who is unconscious/dead, and she sees no life in him and she hears no noise from him and she is stunned and speechless due to what she is seeing.

“and I’m yelling out, “William, where are you, you need to talk to Mummy”

She is yelling to Williams body trying to get a response from him but as she told us earlier he was nowhere. Her use of the word nowhere now becomes very obvious. She is not lying to us she is telling the truth as William was literally “nowhere”. You could not honestly use a positive statement like “he wasn’t there” to describe him because he was “there”. But even though his body was there, William the child who screams, shouts, laughs, cries, runs and jumps wasn’t. That William was nowhere.

I won’t analyse any more of her statement because it is all self-explanatory when you have point of reference to work from. I want to explain what I believe happened to William and that is related to his bike. When references to this bike in statements are analysed they show a lot of sensitivity. See some of those statements below:

The next morning, William [suggested] [racing] on his new bike, riding on the [path] off the driveway.

“William rode his bike down that same footpath and [deliberately] [crashed] his bike into the garden,” the foster mother told police.

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]

“so many thoughts that just go [crashing] through your brain in a split second”

“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]

I believe William was racing his bike and had an accident possibly breaking his neck or banging his head against something hard which resulted in his death. I believe his mother did hear the sound of the crash and it was that which caused her to come down stairs and out of the house to look for him. Unfortunately the accident must have been fatal. She called her husband who returned home and decisions were made on what to do.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

Interesting, Adrian. It may well have been an accident on his bike on the driveway or on the footpath off the driveway (which leads to steps + front door). The kitchen is on the upper floor (= upstairs) of the house, though, and situated directly on the patio. So going "back upstairs" is not incongruent with "I've just walked out" I believe. I guess we've now looked at it from every possible angle. A tragic case on many levels. Let’s see what the remainder of the inquest brings (resumes in August).

Autumn

Anonymous said...

One more thing. The below text is from the foster parents statement of Sept 20, 2014 (see for entire statement one of my above comments).

William is only three years and three-months-old and really still a baby, he has so many more years to live and we desperately want him home.
(…)
To the Kendall community: You are amazing, every day we would hear how many volunteers had shown up at the showground and every day the numbers got bigger. People had taken time off work, we saw a lady pushing a pram and holding a baby on her front walking looking for William, we saw a man walking his push bike looking for William, and we saw everyday people just like us in the bush and on the road looking for our little boy. And every day – all through the day – people were dropping off food and drinks to support the searchers.
Thank you so much! You should feel very proud of yourselves and the community.”


Could the bold parts be a leak of what happened to William? ->
- William was still a baby.
- The foster parents had taken time off work to visit Nana.
- The foster mother pushed baby William on Nana’s front walk.
- She was walking and pushing his bike.
- William landed in the bushes on the left side of the front walk (the front walk is going down and the foster mother may have lost control over the bike -> could that be how she “grazed” her hand?)
- Then he dropped off onto the adjacent, lower gravel road (going to the first/lower floor of Nana’s house).

Several times the foster mother used the word “clump” when describing the moment William “disappeared” (“glassy…grassy clump” / “I sort of feel like they’ve gone “clump” on his shoulders”). The fall may have made a clumpy sound or his head may have hit a clump of something. I think it was not the (i.m.o. non-existent) driver of a “third car” who had “sandy reddy-coloured hair”. It was William.

Autumn

Me said...

Why was William under illegal surveillance before he was taken away from bio parents?
Who was following him/them?

frommindtomatter said...

Autumn said:

Several times the foster mother used the word “clump” when describing the moment William “disappeared” (“glassy…grassy clump” / “I sort of feel like they’ve gone “clump” on his shoulders”).

Yeah very good observation, I hadn’t noticed the two uses of that word. It is a word that you don’t hear very often so it is interesting it comes up twice. It is possible the noise of William colliding with something would have made a clumping sound.

I still feel the father is connected to the accident but it may just be that he being coerced into lying which is causing a lot of cognitive problems for him. Please take a look at this clip from 60 minutes, I posted it before but I see more in it now.

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

11m 44s

If we look at the mothers body language we see that she interrupts the father and at the same time does two firm downward hand gestures. That body language is the same wherever you go in the world and it doesn’t take an expert to understand it. It means “keep it down”. But there is something else I missed last time, if you keep watching her hand you will see she makes another gesture seconds after the first. She makes a backwards winding movement with her hand and finger which finishes with the hand going down. Again that is very simple to understand as we see people do it often. It is “wind it down” which essentially means shut up. When she drops her finger at the end of it she looks at her husband to make sure he gets the message.

People who have been together for many years know each other so well that a simple look can be enough to convey a message and the partner will understand. The father wants to talk but the mother knows he might say too much so shuts him down. I am sure they know what happened to William.

I look forward to any new information the inquest in August brings. I think you mentioned in an earlier post about the grandmother not being present at the inquest which could suggest her distancing herself from the parents. This is from the Police interview:

P: She can’t blame herself.

M: No she doesn’t, well I hope she doesn’t, but, no she can’t.

The mothers statement starts strong but she weakens it, then we see she says “but” to weaken her already weakened words further. Then she self-censors before changing from the two uses of “doesn`t” to “can’t”. Her words suggest that the grandmother may have reason to feel some amount of blame.

I believe the mother was inside when it all went down and that grandmother would have technically been the only supervisor of William at that moment. Perhaps she does blame herself and the distancing is because of that. It would be good to see any statements the grandmother made. It stands out because everybody seems to have made statements either in interviews or in the press, both Williams foster family and his biological family, yet the one person we haven’t heard from is the grandmother.

If we look at the information coming from the family’s side we have 85% from mother, 15% from father and 0% from grandmother. Possibly the grandmother and father want to tell the full story but the mother is running the show.

Adrian.

Anonymous said...

Adrian, you may be right about that. She also says "There was no answer. There was no answer" during those gestures. That could be a conscious or subconscious warning to her husband: Don't answer! Don't answer! Apparently she didn't want him to say "They always run to the gate", etc. She starts interrupting before he says “gate”. What did she think he was going to reveal.

My impression from the beginning was: the foster mother feels guilty/responsible. More so than the foster father. But the father may be involved somehow. We just don’t know what happened. Maybe there is only one cell tower in the (rural) area. In that case, the police may not have been able to fully check the timeline.

In any case, I don’t think it was an abduction. The foster mother says that herself in many different ways in the police interview. For instance:
- the statement about her brothers’ kids (“There’s no reason for them not to be safe at Nanna’s house”);
- the statement about William not going blindly with people (“He wouldn’t do it, he just wouldn’t do it, it’s not in him, (…) he’d run back, (…), I can’t see him do it”);
- the statement about expecting abductions in the city rather than Kendall ( “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”;
- etc.

I’m not so sure the mother was inside when it happened. The first statement we have about that is in the triple 0 call: “I was out there talking with my mum and my other daughter”. So the foster mother and grandmother were together when it happened. I don’t think the grandmother was responsible (I’ve also read that she has early dementia or alzheimer’s).

Another thing that crossed my mind: why does the foster mother say that the daddy tiger roar is the last “sound” memory she has of William? Was there another sort of memory that came after (a visual one)?

Autumn

frommindtomatter said...

Autumn said:

“Another thing that crossed my mind: why does the foster mother say that the daddy tiger roar is the last “sound” memory she has of William? Was there another sort of memory that came after (a visual one)?”

That’s a very good observation; I have just taken a look at that interview now and made a transcript of her answer.

Interviewer: What was the very last you saw or heard of William?

Mother: That was it. So that’s, [yeah], that’s [my last sound], [my last sound memory] of William is Roar. And [then] it’s nothing, and [then] it’s [just] silence and he`s [just] vanished.

She actually answers the question with her first words “That was it.” The problem is she feels a need to expand on what was a good answer.

“So that’s, [yeah], that’s [my last sound] ], [my last sound memory]”

She pauses to think a moment, “So that’s, [yeah]”, the yeah being her confirming with herself (her own mind) whether that was the last sound she heard. That’s interesting that she has to consider what she is going to say, we expect she knows this moment very well. It should be something etched into her memory. Bear in mind her initial answer was “that was it”, and now by continuing on she has weakened her first statement substantially, and also shown self-doubt by having to confirm her words in her own mind. We also note the sensitivity relating to the repeated words “[my last sound], [my last sound]”.

“And [then] it’s nothing, and [then] it’s [just] silence and he`s [just] vanished.”

She still continues adding to her statement this time stringing together three uses of negative language. Here she lists more memories of William although there should not be any more as he is allegedly gone at this point. Think about this I believe it speaks volumes. If William is gone there should be no more memories of him, so why does she carry on and state her next memories of him were:

Nothing, Silence and Vanished

“And [then] it’s nothing”

She has made many similar references to “nothing” in her statements. It is a way to avoid saying what there actually was. There is always something. There is no memory of “nothing” as in order to have a memory there must be something to have one about. A legitimate memory would be to say “and then he was gone” or something similar.

It’s like if someone asks a loved one what’s wrong if they sense they are upset, and they answer “nothing”, that means there is definitely something. It is an avoidance of dealing with reality which prompts their answer.

“and [then] it’s [just] silence”

Again we have a memory of silence which is connected to William. In order for him to be silent he must be there. Also note the word “just” which could be there to minimise/compare the word “silence” with something else.

I believe what she is telling me. William (the life force, spirit, call it what you will) has vanished, he is no longer alive.

My conclusion is based on what she literally told us in her own words. Why after giving the answer “that was it” did she carry on when she had already answered the question? The answer is that there was more to say, in her mind she hadn’t answered the question fully, and she had more memories to give so carried on to see it to its conclusion.

It’s possible if we had access to the original police statements that they would reveal where William is now.

Adrian.

Susan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

It came out at recently mother had taken 5 photos not 3 as she continually stated. Why would she say 3?

She drove around looking for William before the father returned. This concerns me no end.

In one prior documentary she is talking to the offender and says something like......you just cant throw him out like rubbish from the road. How does she know that or how could she consider that!

She never says William's name.

She kept calling William HER son or boy.

She tells the emergency operator no no no in answer to a question about strange cars in area. The night if the day William disappeared she drove to the airport 20 kms away to pick up her sister. On way home she remembered 2 strange cars parked opposite the address William was taken from. She also remembered about a 3rd car that turned in a neighbour's driveway when she was playing with William's sister at the front of the house. When the 1st police responder arrived she said in a early documentary that she was standing on the spot where 2 cars were parked earlier when the officer arrived. She still doesnt remember to tell the officer about the 2 cars. The 2 cars she says were parked between 7 and 9am. A female neighbour who helped in the search and testified said she took children to school at 8.40am and there were no cars when she drove from her driveway. The 2 cars were supposedly parked near this neighbour's boundary fence. The grandmother whose property William disappeared from had told police she thought the immediate next door neighbour to the above neighbour was involved. The 2 cars were supposedly parked before his driveway.


Her stories read like a plot in a really badly written crime novel. NOTHING makes sense.

Unknown said...

Exactly, bungled case. Lack of investigation of foster parents. Detective charged. William never stod a chance and now the case is cold.

Paully2019 said...

I am far form an expert statement analysis although I have been reading analyzed statements for three years. I am about to do the course. Looking forward to learning and using my skills when I have completed my course. I've just been reading the police interview with the foster parents again. I note the foster mothers words, using "we", indicates she does not want to be alone on this. She uses the word "boy" several times, distancing herself. Other statements I have read of genuine missing persons, the mother calls the missing child by name. The more I read the more suspect the case looks. The casual nature of the triple zero call is concerning. No excited utterance.

Anonymous said...

The Gate to the balcony.

Anonymous said...

Kids love to dress up.
I used to wear my dressing gown as a batman suit when I was young (we were poor).
If you google image the address you will find a very high front balcony accessible by a gate a ground level at the back area where William was playing.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps she was simply goung to refer to her "other foster child" or "other chikd" but cut her self off mid sentence and said daughter?

Anonymous said...

There is a very high front balcony accessible from the back area at ground level

Anonymous said...

Perhaps William fell from the large front balcony?
The foster mother ran her hand over William's head, as a loving person would?
"William why won't you answer me?"

"red, red why don't I see any red? "

Perhaps they became fearful of losing Williams sister also?

I have been following this story for years now and have seen the house. The balcony is very high.
Google street veiw it.

Anonymous said...

2-3 metres away from where they were sitting is the gate to the balcony

Sit A Spell said...

Also listen to the family friends during the search they say William was a happy little boy”. Speaking in the past tense. Also they left several hours earlier than planned to go to the foster grandmothers house. Why has no one questioned why BOTH parents were absent during that short time William went “missing” ? And that 000 call reminds me of Susan Smith here in the US that killed her boys. I have children and that is NOT a frantic mother whose child is missing.

Anonymous said...

Just a comment on the last part. My 4 year old son is obsessed with Batman and The Hulk and constantly goes out dressed up as them. However for christmas he was an Anna or Elsa doll. Nothing sinister in that, and very much a boy. He's 4 too.

Unknown said...

Who are you!?? Thank you for sharing Karlie's story!!! God bless you!!! 💜🙏

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 273 of 273   Newer› Newest»