Here we are surprise there is no inquest, despite the fact that we told people at the end of the last episode that there was going to be an inquest, and we may have suggested that the inquest was going to answer some of the questions outstanding about what happened to William Tyrrel and everything that's been done in the
ten years since. The big news is that actually that's not happening because I found out on Tuesday, and all credit to the person who gave us this tip, who didn't have to and shall remain nameless, the inquest isn't going ahead because and I can this is what the
Coroner's Court have sent me. I can now confirm that the coroner has closed the evidence in this inquest and vacated the hearing dates, a timetable for written submissions has been set down, and a date for the delivery of Her Honor's findings as the coroner has not yet been fixed.
So what we're going to do in this episode is instead of saying here's what's going to come in the inquest, this week, we're going to talk about what this decision means and what the inquest is going to look at and what it now will not look at and we're going to talk about what this podcast will do next because we're not finished, are we far from it?
And for the.
First time in this episode, we're going to give the perspective of the police from the man who actually led the force for years during the most controversial period of the William Tiole investigation. And I'm pleased because the police haven't been talking to us during this podcast series, and that's you know, they've got a reason to, which is that they don't want to say anything while the inquest is ongoing. And they've probably also got a reason to
which is that we have criticized them. And it's good that we're going to be able to hear from them, get their perspective, particularly from the person who was in charge. So that's what we're going to do in this episode. I'm Dan Box, I'm Nina Young and from news dot com dot Au. This is Witness William Tyrrell Episode eleven. What now?
Okay, So Dankrona has closed evidence yeap and is asking for written submissions. Yeah, what does that mean?
Well, so this is interesting. So closing the evidence means she's not going to hear anything else in open court, she's only going to make her decisions based on what she's heard up to this point. Written submissions is basically well, all the lawyers involve representing all the different parties, So the police, biological family, foster family, the state government are in there, some persons of interest I imagine Frank Abbott who is an interested person and gets to represent himself.
They get the opportunity to essentially make an argument, and for the first time they're not dealing in facts, they were able to say, this is our opinion of what you the coroner should find right. But again, and this goes back for me to one of the things I struggle with with this inquest. Written submissions means everything's written down and sent to the coroner. I don't know if it's going to be made public. It's not going to be heard in open court. I've written to the court
and said will those be made public? And I haven't heard back yet. So everything is kind of being done at this point behind closed doors. Yeah, And the problem with that is you have to trust that everything is being done properly. It's not held up to the light to examine it.
So at this point it seems like we're not going to hear anything from the police investigation from the last four years in the court in public.
That is that is actually a big deal, and it's the thing that so when I got this news that tip from that person who shall remain nameless. And also I should say we've had a lot of tips, and this podcast is better because people have been getting in touch and have been sending us tips and things to follow up and things to chase. And we probably should at some point come back and actually say thank you to people and tell them the tips that have come
in and how we followed them up. And we will do that, but not right now, because you asked me a question. You asked me essentially, what will happen to all the work that the police have done over the past four years. It took me a day or two
to really process this when I got that tip. What the decision by the coroner means is before this year, we thought the inquest had finished once before, back in October twenty twenty, and at that point the coroner said she was going to hand down her findings, so she was basically saying the work is done. But just before that, the police had made a decision to focus on the foster mother as a possible suspect, and since then they've spent four years working on that investigation, had those massive
forensic search at Kendall for four weeks. Yeah, They've seized the car, the foster grandmother's car. We've had media leaks, we've had pressure tactics, a child has been taken away from the foster parents. All of that has happened. But now the coroner is saying she doesn't want to hear from the police, so she's refused to call David Laidlaw, the lead detective, to give evidence at the inquest, and
she's now closed the evidence. And I think that means that the coronial team don't think those four years have produced anything that shows what's happened to William. I mean the inquest has heard, you know, from the lead lawyer. He said, it's beyond argument that no forensic evidence has been located that provides a clue to his disappearance. And it's beyond argument that there's no eyewitness who's provided any account of how William left the house where he was
reported missing. So four years of police work looking at one particular suspect and the coroners basically said she's not impressed.
Do you think that means that she won't be considering a lot of that evidence.
I think she has to consider it.
What does she have to consider what she allowed to be shown in the court.
She has to consider everything that is tendered in evidence. But the fact that she doesn't want to hear him answer any questions about it, including you know, why they pursued that investigation, why they looked at William's foster mother, what basis they had for that. She doesn't want to interrogate that at all. She doesn't want the details in
his statement to become part of the public record. That suggests she's not impressed that they have cracked the case, and that means you've got to ask have the police been looking in the right direction for four years? And if they haven't, then have they missed the opportunity to look at someone else.
We said at the start of the series that an inquest is not a criminal trial. It's not trying to find who's responsible. It is trying to find out the cause of a death, or if there was a death at all. What do you think this inquest will find?
Ah?
I think it's inevitable now that the inquest is going to come back with an open finding, And an open finding is basically where the inquest comes back and says, we don't know, or.
On the basis of probability, William died on the twelfth of September. Yeah, something like that.
I think that is quite likely the colonel will come back and say that, on the basis the available evidence William. I hate saying this, and I apologize to those people who might listen and find this confronting on William. I think the coroner will probably come back and say, on the basis the available evidence, William is dead. But then I think on the basis of the evidence that the coroner's got, I don't think they can say how he died,
who was involved, what happened. So they're going to come back with what is normally called an open finding, which means basically, we don't know. And the thing is normally in those cases and I've seen this happen. The coroner will then refer the case back to the police Unsolved Homicide Team for reinvestigation. But here David Laidlaw, the man who's been leading the investigation, is in the unsolved Homicide Team. He's one of their leaders, and others on the strike
force are in the Unsolved Homicide Team. So if the coroner refers it back to unsolved, she's referring it back to the same people who've been the same people who've been investigating it and who she is now saying I
don't want to hear from. As well as all the other things we talked about earlier in this series about the Unsolved Homicide Team in terms of delays, I mean massive delays, backlogs of hundreds of cases they haven't looked at, missing evidence, unopened cases, nineteen cases unsolved homicides sitting on David Laidlaw's desk for a year that he didn't look at.
So if the coroner refers it back to that team, I don't know where this goes next, and I don't know if that would be the right decision, but I think that is what the inquest will find. Okay.
So we were hoping, and this is probably a bit of a false hope, we were hoping that they'd be, you know, this last week of the inquest, and that was going to tie all the question we have up in a nice bow. That's probably never going to happen.
You know a number of people who've said that to me in the past couple of days since we broke the news on news dot com do AU that the inquest now wasn't going ahead. It's effectively just been stopped. The number of people have said, but we were waiting to hear the answers, or but it was supposed to resolve this, and in fairness it was that's what those processes are set up to do.
Yeah, I mean it was probably a false hope, but everyone has that hope. You want, you want the inquest to come to the end, give you all those answers, and everyone goes, ah, finally that makes sense. We're not going to get those answers. It looks like, no, what questions do you still have?
Well, I think the interesting thing now is what the inquest won't talk about. And I think one of the key things that the inquest is not going to talk about is the police investigation itself, because the coroner has said that she is not investigating the police investigation, and that's been born out by her actions. The coroner has chosen not to call There's been three lead detectives on
this case over the last ten years. The Coroner's chosen not to call two of them, hands her up and Gary Jubilin to give evidence at all, and David laidlaw the thirds of those lead detectives. The police actually asked that he give evidence of the most recent hearing and the coroner refused it. And the coroner isn't looking at why the police have done what they've done or how
they've done what they've done. And that's fine if you assume the police have done a good job, But if you're trying to find out what happened to a missing child, I think you actually have to ask if the police did a good job, and if not, what went wrong, what's missing, because asking those questions is how you start to stop this happening again, And maybe asking those questions is how you start putting right this investigation. The quest I don't think it's going to.
Ask that, and I think if we examine what's happened in the last four years, you're going to find some faults.
But that's the thing. If the inquest doesn't look at the last four years, then no one is going to examine what the police have done in that time. The other thing I think the inquest is not going to talk about is the care system itself. So this is the system that William Tirel wass a foster child, which means the state government has parental responsibility for him and
what happens to him. So that's the same state government department that threatened journalists with prison if we revealed the fact that he was a foster child at the start. It's the same state government department that went to court fighting to keep that fact hidden. And when you do
look at that system, it's overloaded. Last year there were reports that over one hundred vulnerable kids and young people were living in an emergency accommodation such as hotels, motels and car parks because there's such a shortage of foster cares. The Department of Communities and Justice, which is the relevant department, estimates that they need an extra six hundred foster cares
each year to catch up with the backlog. There's about fifteen thousand children on the New South Wales Child Protection Register, So fifteen thousand kids like William, is that system looking
after them? No, the system's not working, okay. So there's been reports in the last year that there are over one hundred thousand reports that one of those kids is at risk of significant harm in roughly the year from twenty two to twenty twenty three, but just one in four of those is actually seen within a month.
That's really scary.
That's really scary. That's one hundred thousand kids or more at risk of harm and only one in four is seen by the government department within a month. And the very worst performing area was the mid North Coast and New South Wales, which is where William went missing. Now maybe that's a coincidence, but that's something that like surely that bears examination. I'm not saying William was one of those kids, but they are kids just like he was, and they need protecting. And I don't think the inquest
is going to look at that system at all. There's one other thing I don't think the inquest will talk about. I don't think the inquest will look at itself if I'd be amazed. And I say that as a cynical crime reporter who's seen a few of.
These, it's an unusual inquest.
It's complete.
I've never seen anything like that, and I've spoken to multiple homicide detectives who've done this stuff. For years and have never seen anything like this the way it's played out. I mean, look at so he got We mentioned the decision not to call hands up and Gary Jubilin, who were the lead detectives. The inquest isn't going to question
that decision because they made that decision. The Inquest isn't going to question whether possibly the coronial team was led too closely by the police that came in after Gary's career sort of flamed out, and who didn't really want anything to do with Gary or what he was looking at because of all that fallout, and the inquest probably and I might be wrong, and if I am wrong,
then all credit to them. The Inquest isn't probably going to question whether it made sense to have the police investigation after Gary left, which was looking particularly at Frank Abbott, who now has a conviction for child sex offenses. The inquest isn't going to look at whether it made sense for them to be investigating that at the same time the police are investigating him, which meant that evidence gathered by the police was sent to Frank Abbott in his
jail cell for him to read. And I don't know if the inquest is going to public ask itself why they never asked Frank Abbot to give any evidence, because after everything we heard about people telling the inquest that he'd said he knew where William Toole was buried, that he had a history of frankly disturbing behavior and allegedly violent behavior. After all of that.
And a deathbed confession from a best friend.
From a best friend which seemed to suggest that Frank Abbot had a connection to that friend and may have been in a car that drove somebody who matched William's description north on the day he went missing, none of that was actually followed up by asking Frank Abbot any
questions about it. Yeah, I don't think the inquest is going to ask itself whether that was the right decision, And I don't think the coroner is necessarily gonna, in her findings, is going to ask herself the question whether the inquest could have done more to guide or rein in the police in the past four years, now that we know they've spent those four years looking at Williams Foster Mum, and yet we're not going to hear from the lead detective about what they were doing or why
they were doing it. None of that has been asked, and I don't know if we're going to hear why that wasn't asked.
So we have been asking these questions, we've been doing our best to try and answer them. But we are just a podcast, right So who do you think is the best person to ask these questions answer them.
I'd love to say it was you and me, but we're not. We're We're two reporters sitting in a podcast studio in Sydney, and we don't have the resources or the expertise to do this work. I think we need a public inquiry, and I know Alana Smith, who in the last episode accused me of contractual shit fuckery, will be pleased to hear that because that's what she thinks, and she thinks that we should be calling for it. But it's also the one thing that everyone agrees on.
Both William's biological family and his foster family. Bill Spedding, who was the first suspect held up by the police, Gary Juberlin, who led the investigation for several years, they all have said to us that they think there should be a public inquiry. And the thing with a public inquiry is it's got powers to investigate the police. It's got powers to seize documents. It's run by people who are, with the greatest respect to you and me, much smarter
and know what they're doing with this thing. No, definitely, I've seen them work. I mean, look, I say, in this case, we've talked about the Unsolved Homicide Team. Most of the evidence that we've talked about there about the flaws in how that has run in the past. Massive flaws came from a special Commission of inquiry into the police's handling of hate crimes against LGBTQI people. That inquiry was phenomenally well run. It was aggressive, It searched out
the truth. It actually solved unsolved homicides while it was doing its job that the police hadn't. Can you imagine something with that kind of power and ability to uncover what happened looking at this case, looking at how it's been handled by the state government, by the police, maybe even by the media, and calling all of them to account and also saying, you know what, maybe this is what you missed.
Yeah, I think this it needs sunlight.
All reporters say that everything needs sunlight.
But this does. If you're going to be publicly accusing people, which they've done effectively, effectively effectively multiple times.
Well, no, publicly they have.
Yeah, So if you're going to be publicly accusing people, you can't just walk away from that and leave those people with their lives destroyed, like you have to answer those questions publicly.
Well, okay, So this is something the coroner is going to have to grapple with, is those people who have been accused did they do it? So you've got okay, so just the ones that have been identified. He got Paul Savage, the neighbor who doesn't have any real alibi for what he was doing at the time William went missing. You've got Frank Abbott, who's now been convicted child sex offenses.
You've got a person who we actually haven't mentioned in this podcast, but we have in some of the news reporting on news dot com dot au who I'm not going to name, but the police called him Gorillas in the mist. That was their nickname for him. He lived very close to where William went missing, and he had a montage of photos at the end of his bed
which included photos of William. You've got Tony Jones, who both has no alibi and now has a child sex conviction, and you've got other local pedophiles or sex offenders, all of whom have been publicly identified over the past decade as people the police are looking at, and the coroner is going to have to look at that, and she's going to have to say something.
So there was a time when it seemed outwardly to the public that they were about to solve this case.
That the police were about to solve them. There was and most people believed it, and in fact I believed it. Yeah, So I remember seeing that story that broke front page of the Daily Telegraph September twenty twenty one, saying the police had a new suspect and they were confident they were going to crack the case, and that new suspect was William's foster mother. I remember reading that and thinking the police must have really good evidence to be saying that publicly.
And in such a strong way.
It's such a strong way and to give you some context to that. So that article came out and then the next month, October twenty twenty one, the foster mother was told she's going to face questions of the Crime Commission, which is the secretive, powerful body. You can't tell anyone, you've got to be questioned there. And then about a week after that, Ben Fordham, who's the radio host on one of Sydney's biggest radio stations, two GB.
Ben said this, it's now been more than seven years since the disappearance of William Tyrell. But I can tell you this, New South Wales Police believe they will crack this case. They don't say that lightly. I've had discussions with members of the New South Wales Police Force. They believe the mystery of William Tyrell will be solved.
Then a few days after Ben said that, the police sees the gray Masda III that Williams foster grandmother owned and Williams foster mum drove the morning he went missing. A couple of days after that, Williams foster mother is questioned at the Crime Commission in secret and a child is taken from her. Day after that, the police seek an apprehended violence order preventing Williams foster parents having any
contact with that child, who we can't identify. And a few days after that the police launch this massive search in Kendall. It's on every TV news bulletin, it's in every newspaper. They literally dig up tons and tons of earth and civet. That's the detail the cops go into. And I remember at the time this very senior cop,
Detective Chief Superintendent Darren Bennett. He says there's hundreds of officers involved in that search, and he says the searches are in response to evidence we have obtained in the course of the investigation, not speculative in any way. So he's saying they've got evidence, that's what they're acting on. And he says it's highly likely that if we found something, it would be a body.
I remember that and I remember thinking, they're about to find the body.
Well, yeah, because he's just told you we've got evidence, we're about to find a body. And then the day after that, there's another article in the Daily Telegraph and all credit to the Daily Telegraph. If you want to know about crime in New South Wales, it's the place to read. It's this article that says inside the police thinking on the case. So at this point we know the police are looking at the foster mum, but we
don't know why. But this article starts talking about inconsistencies in her evidence, and by now it's widely being reported in the media that the police are looking at whether William fell from the balcony in his house and his foster mum dispose of his body. So that's out there. All of this has happened in a few weeks and it's being reported the police are considering common assault charges. And then on two GB Ben Fordham is talking to the Police Commissioner.
The new South Wales Police Commissioner, Mick Fuller is on the line. Commissioner, good morning to you, Good morning Ben, this is a big development.
Well then, we've.
Never given up on finding what happened to William Tyrell, and I've said that from day one when I started as the commissioner, and I brought a new team on board under Detective Chief Inspector Dave laid Law through probably the state's experienced homicide investigator, and he pulled together probably one of the best teams we've seen and they inherited what was a bit of a mess and have really cleaned up that investigation and they've got a clear strategy all right, just on.
The foster parents. Some of the areas that you're searching are less than one kilometer from the house on Benaron d where William vanished. Can I ask why you haven't searched these areas before?
Well, the areas have been searched, Ben, But if you can imagine initially we're searching for a missing ball and that search area expanded, then you know, I suppose that the transition of the investigation was looking at some persons of interest that were clearly not and I think sometime was wasted on that in bush Land as overgrowing, and so a frushet of eyes under the new team, under Detective Cheap inspector laid Law, and you know they've been particulously pulling apart this matter.
How many suspects have you narrowed the investigation down to?
You know, my understanding is from the investigators is that there is certainly one person in particular that we are looking closely at.
Commissioner, let me ask you lastly on this, how confident are you about the suspect that your detectives have in mind?
Look, I'll say this, Ben, confident that the team who has the investigation at the moment, I'm confident they can solve it. I truly believe that, and I have from the start, and I would ask if people continue to be patient and just trust in the offices that are currently investigating the matter, that they are the best.
So in that interview on TGB, Mick Fuller, the police Commissioner, gives the investigation his full support. He talks about how previously and he means under Gary Jubilin the investigation was a mess and that it wasted time looking at the wrong people. And I know from speaking to Gary he furiously disagrees with that. Mick Fuller, the Commissioner also says that the new lead detective Gary's replacement, David Laidlaw, is one of the most experienced homicide investigators in the state
and his team is the best. And he says they now have one suspect and he's confident they can solve it, and he asks people to trust the police. So, Mick Fuller, he oversaw this case four years he's now left the police, and I wanted to ask him how he felt about it now. And I also wanted to talk to him because we have spent a good part of this series criticizing the police, hopefully fairly, but we have said this went wrong, that went wrong, this could have been done better.
And I know that that's easy for us when we don't know what it's like to be in their position. So I asked Mick Fuller about that. And bear in mind this interview was actually recorded a few days ago, before we knew that the inquest was done. It wasn't coming back. So the first thing I asked Mick was how he looked back on his time in the police force.
The sense of purpose that you get helping people. It's very difficult to get that feeling in other walks of life. So I always found on one hand the rewarding nature of helping people, and then on the other hand it was it's such a great team environment, and you know, you meet some amazing people and have some unbelievable experiences. So I think, you know, certainly that sense of purpose for mine is something that you know, I miss.
Why did you actually join the police in the first place?
Could you go back to nineteen eighty seven and there was a huge recruitment campaign and there were lots of ads, and I thought to myself, it looked like a job that would be rewarding and lots of funs. So yeah, I threw in for that with thousands of other young people, and you know, really, once I joined, I never looked back.
When William went missing, Mick was working as a senior officer in the police force, but he didn't have anything to do with the case itself, so his first experience of William's disappearance was watching the news on TV like most people. I asked if he was briefed on the William Twole investigation when Mick was promoted and took over the police force in twenty seventeen.
No, it certainly wasn't in the handover and it's not that obviously he's not.
An important case.
But if you keep in mind that when I retired in early twenty two, there were over four hundred and forty active cold cases suspected homicides dan, so you know, this is certainly the most high profile case. You know, there are lots of other families hoping and praying for answers as well.
And did you feel that responsibility as commissioner.
Oh, definitely, you definitely did, because you were meeting people, you know, as a request from government. You were meeting people at events. You know, you would speak regularly at rotary dinners and you would bump into people, so it was always front of mind because you were constantly out in the community do you remember.
When maybe the first time the case did come across your desk.
I certainly remember the issues towards the end of Gary Jubilant's time with the case. You know, it was a complex time for the investigation. It was a complex time for Gary. But when things that are making the front page of the paper or the lead stories, as the commissioner, you need to have some understanding of where it's at because the media are going to ask questions about the investigation and have we let William yrel down.
You're talking about the end of Gary's time as the lead detective, the decision to remove him. It wasn't actually yours. It was made by Mick Willing, who was acting as your delegate. But it was kind of made in your name, so I imagine you would have been briefed on it at the very least.
Of course, But as a commissioner of Police, you can't possibly get involved in the in the minutia. You know, you've gotten in superintendent's chief superintendent, you've got assist commissioner and a deputy commissioner before any of that would.
Get to me.
But you would have supported the decision made by your subordinate.
No of course, of course, and and uh and and not just because of what unfolded around behaviors. And you know, I'll call it noble course corruption. But if you talk to victims groups, then they're they're often frustrated from lack of progress, which is not always the case, but they will tell you that a fresh set of eyes on conflicts and solved particularly homicide, is the best being for the case.
Can I just go back to the one thing you said there? You mentioned noble cause corruption, which you and I both know that phrase kind of echoes back to the wood World Commission into New South Wales police corruption and this idea that police officers at the time were giving the green light to criminals as a way, at least in their minds or in their justification of doing the greater good, and that was the noble cause to their corruption. But why use it in this context?
The noble cause corruption is for mine, is more linked to police try and solve the case thinking they're doing the wrong thing by short cutting the rules or breaking the rules, which is very different to the corruption that we saw around the Royal Commission.
Yeah, it's still the pursuit of the greater good. And then like you said cutting corners or breaking some rules, and you think that maybe what's happened here.
Although I think in terms of Gary's case, you know that matter has been through the courts and finalized, so I you know, look, I've never spoken to Gary about it.
I read about it in the papers.
Obviously he was a retired police officer at this stage. But you know, I think that it would be difficult to dispute that just to interrupt Gary.
Jubilin does dispute that Gary hates the idea of noble cause corruption and he insists everything he did on the William two and investigation was legal and in the interests of trying to find a missing child. Now, of course the courts did not agree with Gary, and Mick Fuller does accept that the way Gary's career ended wasn't straightforward.
You know, he worked tirelessly, he had a long career and you've you know, you can't help but feel a little sorry the way he finished his time with New Sulasspoints.
After Gary left the force, you went on two GB and you talked about how the New Strikeforce had one particular suspect they were looking at and described the investigation that they'd taken over as being a bit of a mess. Was that what you were talking about then, this kind of position that Gary got into, or were you talking about something more broadly?
I think that Gary's focus.
Pause enormous angst in the actual task.
Force itself there.
And I think one of the challenges in these cases is that they are complex. They've been running, you know, something over a decade. They have been multiple in investigations and often in these cases.
There are multiple inquests.
Now what I see comes out of that there is that multiple victims come out of that. People feel as though they're being victimized. And the frustration for me as the commissioner, was always there is only one victim in this case, which is William Terrrial.
So there are other people who maybe see themselves as victims or in some ways become victims. And I mean, let's be honest, there's been a lot of a lot of that around this case. All of that draws focus from the person who is at the center of it and is the central victim.
Absolutely, And that's like in quest and coronial. The cranial process is so important because the current group that strike force raised there is actually reporting to the coroner. And I think that is sometimes lost on people, is is that Dave laid Law and his team a collecting information on behalf of the coroner using the coroner's powers.
Given what you said about how the police at the moment of reporting to the coroner, Is it a problem then that the Coroner's refused a request to call Dave Laidlaw was a witness and said that the reason being that the statement he provided, she'd ask for an account of the evidence and he hadn't given that he'd given her essentially an account of his opinion, and so she declined to call him. Is that a problem then?
I don't think it's a problem because if Dave Laidlaw has given a science statement from what he believes, you know, they've arrived that, then the coroner has that Now you know, the coroner could deserve the right to call Dave back at any time, obviously, and it wouldn't be the first time that counsel wasting, the coroner or those representing the
families disagree with police or disagree with the coroners. But I think as long as it's made public and the public understand that you know the terms of what has been accepted and what hasn't.
It's important also.
To note when Dave label Or and his team started, they went back from scratch and they had over nine hundred persons of interest. I won't say suspects that they were persons of interest. And when I had finished up, I finished up in January twenty twenty two. I've got my last breaking on sometime in twenty twenty one. But even at that stage then they still had around ten
persons of interest that they were looking at. So, you know, in terms of tunnel vision for Roseanne, I didn't get a feeling from that during my time.
That's interesting because, of course, in that interview on two GB, the other thing you talked about was I think you were asked specifically was there one person they're looking at, because that had been on the front page of the Daily Telegraph, and you confirmed there was one person they're looking at in particular. And you also sort of wholeheartedly back to the Strike Force. I think you said it was one of the best, if not the best teams that the Force had put together.
OK, And they laid Law is extremely confident, detective, very apolitical, independent of thought. So when he was picked around the team and pulled the team together. They were certainly a very experienced group. Now people may not like they laid Law's opinion on where they have landed, but at the same time, you know, I think that they have run extremely professional investigation.
So when you in the interview you said that, yeah, they're focusing on one person in particular, at the time, they still had maybe I think you said, sort of ten persons of interest, but they were focusing on this one person in particular at that point.
I think statistically, when you look at these type of cases, if you look at the domestic homicide, in those cases, seventy percent of the perpetrators are known to the victim.
And then when you take these unusual cases of a child being abducted or murdered, it's over ninety something percent cases where the victim knows the perpetrator. So certainly, statistically, they were discussing a number of options around you know, who was close to wire you And.
Do you know if what they had ever went beyond statistics in terms of why they were looking at this one person particular.
I never tested they've laid law or the team about why they were or weren't doing something. You know as the commissioner, I would never force an opinion in relation to how an investigation.
Should be wrapped.
And the commissioner's perspective is that you just want to make sure that when you stand up in front of the media, you can hand on heart say that you've put all the resources and you know you've got your best people working on these cases.
And that's looking back, that is how you look at it. It was the best team that you could put onto it, and it was the resources it demanded.
Yeah.
Absolutely, And again the anti challenge in those comments is that I know this four hundred and forty other families sort of drop their heads feeling as though that they're not getting the same attention. But look, I always gave time to victims' families on the basis that they deserve to be heard.
Just on that point, you said you always gave victims families time. You were publicly criticized by William's foster parents, so not his birth parents, but his foster parents who did come out. There was a podcast they spoke on, and they wrote letters and including criticizing both the decisions to take Gary Jibbling off the case. But what they perceived is a lack of action and also personally a
lack of response in your part. They said they wrote your letters, so they left your phone messages and they said they never heard back from you.
Yeah.
Look, I honestly if they feeled as though that in some way that you know, I let William down, then you know, of course that would you know, I would say sorry for that. But at the same time, I think what was more important was a clean slate and again doing our best to focus on solving solving the matter. And you know in that, you know, I ensured that the resources were provided and the task force was properly funded. But look, if they had criticized me, you know, I
accept the criticism. Dan. It's a complex job and there's lots of moving parts and you try to keep people happy all the time but often fail.
Were you actually aware of that criticism at the time.
Though, No, no, no, I wasn't. But again then, as a Commissioner of Police that in Australia, I often got plenty of praise from people, but equally there were plenty of people that were unhappy. And it's not that you ignore that, but you can't let that impact on daily decisions because Unfortunately, every day someone is a victim of a serious crime.
I mean, it's one of the things you take on when you take on a role like that, I'd imagine is you know, you become a public figure for the good and the bad, and there's going to be both and to steer your way through that, isn't it?
No, it is.
But at the same time, if they feel as though that somehow they didn't get vict and care from me, then you know, of course I'm apologetic about that, but there was no malice to that. But again, you'll spread pretty thin at the best of times, but there was certainly no malice in that, and you know, accept their criticism.
Just a couple of last things I'd like to ask you, if possible. One is this investigation in terms of the public understanding of this investigation turned on its head when it became public that the strike force was looking at one person, particularly being William's foster mother, that was on front page of the Daily Telegraph. Were you aware that story was coming at the time, because a lot of people in the police weren't aware.
No, I wasn't aware that the Daily Telegraph was going to run a story on it. Look I know, Gary has been interviewed since his retirement and said that, you know, he had looked at the poster parents at one stage and discounted them.
So I.
Think it would be unreasonable to think that that story shocked anyone, particularly now you Look. Do you, as a police officer have off the record conversations with journalists? Yeah, absolutely you do, and I'm sure you rely on those
every day. But I certainly have never come out publicly on any case and said something that would cause prejudice against an outcome, because you have to remember that even if I had a hunch and that Hunt was right and I said something to prejudice, then your cause more damaged than good dance.
So the case, were you involved in any off the record conversations before that story came out?
Look, I honestly don't recall it. I truly don't, but but I will say this, I had plenty of off the record conversations, and as the commissioner, I was sort of prided myself on being available and having an opinion. Now, backgrounding a story is one thing, but if you know, there's a suggestion that somehow that I had maliciously given information for a public story, as commissioner.
Well, then it's just not true. There's no suggestion.
Of any But did I talk to journalists, yep, journalists still ring me?
Now, yeah, yes they do.
But you know, I think, you know, I don't feel like I've been let down by a journalist, and I don't feel as though that I've ever used that maliciously to damage anyone.
Okay, last thing, looking back now, you're obviously out of the police and your time as commissioner has finished. This investigation hasn't looking back at it now, what are your thoughts about the case?
I feel it in my heart that in these cases you could look back in hindsight and say, look, the first three days were consequential in probably solving the case, and there was a focus on William being a missing person. And I'm sure there's things that we all would have liked to have done better back in twenty fourteen. So I think, you know, at the same time, this is
a particularly challenging case. It was never going to be easy to solve, and maybe it won't get sold this time, but you know, people won't give up on William Tyrrell. You know, new police coming through that will take over this case from Dave laidlaw at some stage and will do another fresh suit of eyes then. So you know, I would love to say that this matter was sold before I retired.
Unfortunately it wasn't.
And sometimes it takes thirty forty years for these type of matters to be solved, and unfortunately then sometimes they never solved.
Okay, So for me, the most significant part of what Mick Fuller said is at the end there he says the first three days of this investigation into William two or were consequential in solving the case, and that there was a focus on William being a missing person in that time, and in hindsight, he says, I'm sure there's things we all would have liked to have done better
back in twenty fourteen. And I think that direct reference to that first fatal mistake not to protect what was a crime scene, to stop people going on it, because we know hundreds of people were up and down that street cars were driving up and.
Down, cars weren't being stopped.
Carl weren't being stopped, searched, identities of drivers taken to allow all that to happen and not close it down and say we're going to look for forensic evidence.
But we saw that the lessons have been learned from William's case.
They have, and the police policy has changed now relatively recently to allow or encourage cops to look at that much much sooner.
In the piece, if you saw the response time on Cleo Smith.
Cleo Smith was a girl who went missing in Western Australia, so a different police force. But yes, that was done much sooner. And look, you don't know if that's the thing that would have solved this, and you can't say that, but Cleo Smith was found. She'd been abducted and she was found within days. The other thing Mick fully says, and this the more I think about it, the more this kind of I can't quite get past this is
he says, this is a particularly challenging case. It was never going to be easy to solve, and maybe it won't get solved this time. And there's new police coming through that will take over this case from David Laidlaw at some stage and there'll be another fresh set of eyes there. And sometimes it takes thirty or forty years for these cases to be solved. But by saying that,
I think implicitly he's saying that David laidlaw. The currently detective might not solve this case because he's saying other police will take it from him. And he's also saying, unfortunately,
sometimes these cases are never solved. So you've got the guy who was responsible for the police for years while William Toole was being looked for by his force saying maybe they're not going to find him, Maybe it's going to take decades, and maybe the current lead detective isn't the man who will solve this case.
That's significant because the case is with the DPP. They're considering charges against the foster mother right now, they're asked to hold off.
Yes, the police sent the brief of evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Presumably now that the inquest is over they will get back to considering that.
Look, that is a really good point. The police sent a brief of evidence to the Director of Public Prosecutions for advice on whether they could charge William's foster mother. Now we don't technically know what that was about, but there's been enough in the media that we know, and they said in court that it's to do with disposing of his body. And then there was months and the DPP said nothing publicly, and then the cops said, look, can you stop thinking about that until the inquest is done.
And the inquest is now done, I think they'll wait until the coroner's findings. But at that point, yeah, the cops will hopefully ask the DPP to make a decision, and the DPP's going to have to say whether they think William's fostermum can be charged, whether that decision will ever be made public. It would be made public if she is charged, but if not, although given the history of leaks in this case, probably find that one out.
But if she's not charged, or if she's charged and not found guilty, then you've got the police have looked at this case for four years and haven't solved it. And I don't think we're really much further forward than we were ten years ago in terms of working out what did happen to William on that day in twenty fourteen.
No, I mean, I think I think the inquest, to give credit to the inquest, did a really good job of examining the initial search for William and I think effectively ruling out that he had wandered off. Yeah, so that I think at this point we can assume did not happen. Yeah, beyond that, there's a lot of questions.
I'll tell you there is one crucial witness who I think has been overlooked, at least in the public mind, and that is William's sister, who was at the house on the day he was reported missing. She was four years old, he was three. They were playing together on the front veranda of the house with William's foster mother and foster grandmother, and when she was asked by police what happened to him, she said, he was playing this game Daddy Tiger, so running up and roaring and running away.
He was playing that on the balcony and then he went off and he was finding Daddy's car. So that's what William's sister. I think he's probably the person who knows him best. And also she's four and probably I don't think it's capable of maintaining a lie to the police at that point, so I think that's honest. And in terms of looking for Daddy's car, we do know
that William's foster father had gone off. He'd driven away to make a work call and he was driving back, and we do know that that family had this history of going out to wait for him when he came back from work, and the kids would be surprised and they'd run to him. And William's sister is saying that
William went off to look for daddy's car. We also know that two of the neighbors who lived just opposite the house where William went missing, say they heard the sound of a car on gravel, and there was gravel around the top of Benirum Drive. And we do know that the foster father's car, like a lot of cars, looked quite similar to one of the neighbors cars, and there were people in the street. Paul Savage was out
at the time. He was packing his car. But William's sister is now the one person in this that we can't talk to or hear from in any form. She's given evidence to the police, She's been interviewed by the police several times over the years, but in the inquest every time they play that evidence, it's in close court because fair enough, she's a child, she's vulnerable. They want to protect her. But in trying to protect her, they've actually made it impossible for her evidence to be heard publicly.
And if I'm honest, I don't see how hearing her evidence is going to harm her. And Okay, I'm not qualified to make that decision, and I'm not a child protection specialist, I'm not the coroner. But it does mean that this one crucial witness who has said what she thinks William was doing at the time he went missing, hasn't been heard from in public.
Okay, so we're coming to the end of the year. Yes, we are coming to the end of the series for now, are we done?
We have a.
Difference of opinion about this because I want to say what we're still doing and you don't want me to say it.
We have questions.
I think it's fair to say we have questions. So in terms of what will happen next, that written submission process you talked about, which may or may not happen in public, I suspect won't. And then the inquest will report at some time the coroner will hand down her findings. My guess is that will take a few months, but.
We will be there to report on that. We will will be there to report on any other significant updates in the case.
Yeah, and the thing you don't want me to talk about is that we still have questions. We do but more than questions, we have been working to fine answers. And there's been a whole other investigation associated with this one that you've been doing, particularly in the background, not on your own. There's been a few of us working on it. But you have found things that surprised me. You have found things that frankly I cannot believe have not been made public, and you've found things that at
times actually kind of shocked me. So those things are part of the answers that we've been working on, and we are going to come back with this podcast to look at those questions to give you those answers. And those answers are about things that have happened on the mid North coast of New South Wales, which is where William went missing. And it is beautiful country. It's white sand, it's thick forest, and it's also the home of some
really troubling allegations. So this inquest may have stopped, but this podcast hasn't. We still have questions and we are going to find answers and we will do that in the next episode of Witness William Tyrell. A lot of different people have been involved in making this series, among them the executive producer is Nina Young. The sound design was by Tiffany Dimack. The producers have been Emily Pigeon, Nicholas Adams, Jazzbar, Phoebe Zakowski, Wallace and Tabby Wilson. Research
by Adan Patrick, original music by Rory O'Connor. Our lawyer is Stephen Coombs, the editor at news dot com. What a U is Kerry Warren, I'm Dan Box
M hm