This week, a woman swore at William Tyrrell’s adoptive mother in front of the media and the public at the New South Wales Coroners’ Court.

The woman, who had no connection to the case, allegedly violated a court order by publicly calling out the adoptive mother’s name and shouting, “Why would you want to harm a child?”

It was just a small snapshot of the vitriol that has been directed for years at the adoptive mother, who cannot be legally identified.

Almost exactly three years after NSW Police first went public with suspicions that they might be responsible for the disappearance of their adopted son, the Coroner’s Court reconvened this week to hear evidence that he had gathered against her.

“Because the police decided to follow up on a theory”

Counsel assisting the coroner Gerard Craddock SC opened this week’s hearings by explaining why they had resumed, more than five years after the inquest began.

But he told the court: “A police officer’s belief may be right or wrong… the coroner cannot act on the express belief of a police investigator. »

Mr Craddock also said there was still “no forensic evidence” and “no eyewitnesses” to what happened to William on September 12, 2014.

The court heard Strike Force Rosann homicide detectives believed the three-year-old may have fallen from the balcony of his adoptive grandmother’s home in Kendall, on the NSW mid north coast. South, before his adoptive mother found his body and panicked.

“Police say she must have quickly realized that if the accidental death was discovered she risked losing (custody of another child in her care),” Mr Craddock told the court.

“Police allege that in this state of mind, she placed William in his mother’s car and, after alerting (a neighbor) that William was missing, she drove his mother’s car to Batar Creek Road and placed William’s body somewhere in the undergrowth, then came back (to the house) to 48 Benaroon Drive and called the police via triple-0.”

What the experts say

The court then heard less than four days of testimony, mostly from experts and people involved in the various ground searches in and around Kendall.

The majority testified specifically about the 2021 forensic search, which relied on the most recent police theory and sparked a media frenzy around the idea that the adoptive mother had become a suspect.

Their testimony highlighted how thorough this search was, both at the property where police believed William may have died and at the site where they believed she had dumped his body in the bush.

One expert, forensic anthropologist Jennifer Menzies, told the court she “cannot say with certainty whether his remains are likely to be preserved.”

But the court also heard there were Australian examples of miners’ bones being found intact after more than 100 years.

Another expert, water and soil specialist Jon Olley, told the court the polyester material in William’s Spider-man suit could last “hundreds of years” in the ground.

But nothing suspicious was found at the site where police suspected she might have left William.

Video of adoptive mother shown in court

This week’s evidence concluded with a lengthy video recording of the adoptive mother’s testimony given to the NSW Crime Commission in November 2021, where she was questioned about her involvement in William’s disappearance.

During the video testimony, she was questioned about possible inconsistencies, including exactly when and why she went for a drive to look for William shortly after he disappeared.

The video also included a recording of a wiretapped phone call between her and a friend in which she expressed frustration with the police’s focus on her, saying “if I had done something to William, I wouldn’t wouldn’t have tried to hide it, I would have.” I recognized him.”

She then told her friend that she thought William would not be found for many years “when they do some cleaning up” and find his “skeleton”.

She wondered if this meant she knew he had been hidden in the bush, which she strenuously denied, saying she meant “he could be anywhere”.

During more than four hours of intense interrogation, she repeatedly denied any claims that she was responsible.

This video concluded this week’s testimonies, with a day to spare.

Before this week, many simply thought that if the police thought she was responsible, they must have good reason to suspect her.

This was their opportunity to present these reasons to the coroner, to present the incriminating evidence they had gathered.

But very little evidence that could be considered incriminating has been presented, at least not in open court.

There was one piece of evidence heard in camera, which we cannot legally report, but there is nothing to suggest it was incriminating.

William’s adoptive mother benefits from the presumption of innocence. Not only was she never convicted of this crime, she was never even charged.

Furthermore, from what has been submitted to the coroner, it now appears that the police have publicly set their sights on her without any new and compelling evidence to suggest that she might be guilty, despite having already been cleared by the former principal investigator.

“Assumptions are not rational”

As Mr Craddock told the court this week: “Assumptions are not rational, suspicions provide no rational basis for drawing conclusions of fact.”

Without forensic evidence or eyewitness accounts, this case has always been driven by the hunches of those charged with finding William.

So far, none of these hunches have come to fruition, no arrests have been made and William remains missing.

It is now at New South Wales Deputy State Coroner Harriet Grahame will have to decide whether any of these hunches are correct.

More importantly, she’ll decide if there’s any way to find out what happened to the little boy at the center of it all.

The little boy who deserves to be found.