Current Disappearance of 3yo William Tyrrell * The foster mother has been recommended for charges of pervert the course of justice & interfere with a corpse

[Kurve]

Criminal charges the former foster parents currently face as at 15 April 2022 include:

• Apprehended Violence Orders on both (AVOs)
• Lying to the NSW Crime Commission on former foster mother *Not Guilty
• Lying to the NSW Crime Commission on former foster father *Not Guilty
• 2 x charges of assault against a child on former foster mother *Guilty
• 1 x charge of assault against a child on former foster father
• Stalking &/or Intimidation on both
• Dummy bidding real estate fraud *Guilty

TIMELINE

Where's William Tyrrell? - The Ch 10 podcast (under Coroner's subpoena)

Operation Arkstone

 

[31550]

The possible deletion of data and new SD card would have to be done before the police arrived. Would there be enough time? The FF and FM would have to be prepared that there would be an immediate and thorough search of the house which would find the camera. The first SD card would have to be hidden, destroyed or thrown out of a car window around the corner.

The house, vehicles and surrounds were not treated as a crime scene. Attention was on search for WT. So vital evidence was lost that may either have helped the defence of FF and FM or solved the mystery. we may never know what happened to WT.

I think plenty of time. The camera and spiderman photos were not handed to police on the day William disappeared. The photo released by police to the media on that day was a completely different one, taken days or weeks earlier. This indicates to me a significant delay before police had access to the Spiderman pics. If it was known that William was wearing a Spiderman suit when he disappeared, and that very recent pictures of him existed in that suit, why not use those pictures into the media? Clearly, the camera was not provided to police immediately and police were not aware of the Spiderman photos immediately or they would have asked for them.

 

[31550]

If there is evidence that FF was present with the 5 photos were created, what would this then mean to the case? Why would FF and FM remove FF from the scene when the 5 photos were created by changing the timeline to be 2-hours forward, and in removing FF from the scene at 48 Benaroon, FM has placed herself well and truly in the picture - or is FF the one that controlled the narrative for 12th? He certainly appears to have controlled the narrative relative to the 11th. IMO it means he has proof that he was elsewhere when the 5 photos were created between 7:38 - 7:40 (rounded up) and at the times of the corrected times 9:36 to o9:38 (rounded up).

If the family had traveled to Kendall (as per alleged prior arrangement) what time would they have departed Sydney and what time would they have (arranged) to be present in Kendall? IMO the corrected times of the 5 photos would fit for travel on 12th departing Sydney at around 5.30am allowing for 4-hours driving, for travel on 11th the created times being close to 2-hours earlier would fit.

If FF was present when the 5 photos were taken, then they are all lying.
There is CCTV footage from the highway and McDonalds Heatherbrae which supports their timeline for the drive up the night before.

 

[gymjam]

The possible deletion of data and new SD card would have to be done before the police arrived. Would there be enough time? The FF and FM would have to be prepared that there would be an immediate and thorough search of the house which would find the camera. The first SD card would have to be hidden, destroyed or thrown out of a car window around the corner.

The house, vehicles and surrounds were not treated as a crime scene. Attention was on search for WT. So vital evidence was lost that may either have helped the defence of FF and FM or solved the mystery. we may never know what happened to WT.

Police arrived at 11.06. The nearest police station was at Laurieton so FF and FM would know that's about 10 minutes away.

7.50 to 11.06 is 3 hours 16 minutes.
7.50 to 10.56 (000 call made by FM) is 3 hours 6 minutes.
7.40 (last created time rounded up) to 8.37 is 57 minutes (to when FF removed himself from 48 Benaroon if he drove to Lakewood direct from there)
7.50 to 8.37 is 47 minutes (to when FF removed himself from 48 Benaroon if he drove to Lakewood direct from there)

After last created time 7:40 and after the showing bikes/car to gran at 7.50, it is 1 hour and 27 minutes until FF's got-to-meeting commenced at 9.17 (police have cctv images of him in car at Lakewood Woolworths location, and it finished 39 minutes later at 9:56. 39 minutes later he arrived back at 48 Benaroon at 10.35.

Well well.... from 8.37 FF's departure time from 48 Benaroon (if he went direct from there to Lakewood) is 1 hour and 58 minutes until he arrived back at 48. The difference between the created times and corrected times of the 5 photographs is 1 hour and 58 minutes (rounded up by 10 seconds).

 

[gymjam]

If FF was present when the 5 photos were taken, then they are all lying.
There is CCTV footage from the highway and McDonalds Heatherbrae which supports their timeline for the drive up the night before.

Something very interesting occurs in the timeline here.

Their departure at McDonald's Heatherbrae 18:40 on 11th to 7.50am on 12/9/2014 is 13 hours 10 minutes. the 'pull ups' stop at 18:50 to 7:50am (12/9/2014) is 13.00 hours. 13.00 hours (1pm) was the time of the FF meeting that was cancelled on 11th that enabled travel to Kendall a day early. So... start the timeline from 13.00 on 11th and what do you get ...

13.00 (cancelled FF meeting that enabled travel to Kendall on 11th instead of 12th) to 7.50am on Friday 12th at 48 Benaroon and the time FM put FF showing his car and kids bikes to gran, is 18:50 hours. FM was the one that wanted FF to stop for the 'pull ups' session!

She can be seen checking her mobile phone as they depart McDonald's Heatherbrae, I reckon she was checking the time.

A question: Do i-phone's hold data of when times are checked?

Google Earth estimates travel time from the precise pull ups location (just past (north of) the raymond terrace sound barriers is 1 hour 57 minutes. I think they arrived at 48 Benaroon at 20.50 and that is 7.50 from 13.00 (the cancelled FF meeting).

One time that never gets mentioned is 13.30 on Friday 12th. This was to be the time that Ben Atwood was to speak with the DOCS/FACS adoption team to kickstart the adoption process for William and LT.

7.40 is 5.50 from 13.30. FF stated he and William woke up at 5.50am on 12th. 5.50 from 13.30 is 7.40 the rounded up time of the last (created) time of the last photo of William!

 

[Kurve]

She can be seen checking her mobile phone as they depart McDonald's Heatherbrae, I reckon she was checking the time.

What does checking the time the night before William disappeared have to do with his disappearance?

 

[31550]

What does checking the time the night before William disappeared have to do with his disappearance?

I suspect someone is taking the proverbial.

 

[gymjam]

There is another worrisome timeline connection that makes me loose sleep and that is on 11/9/2014:

LT was signed in to the day care centre at 8.25 and was picked up at 16:05 and LT spent 7h.40minutes at the centre, and the signin/out sheet was signed on the day by FM.

William was signed in to the the day care centre 8.30am and was picked up at 16.10, so he spent 7 hours 40 minutes at the day care centre. The sign-out was not signed by FM until the 1st day that LT returned to the centre after 12/9/2014 and I understand that day was Tuesday 23/9/14.

16.10 leaves 7.50 from 24hours.

The time (7h.40minutes) that LT and WT spent at the daycare centre on 11th is identical - which is totally different than the other 2-days the days of 9/10 and11th.

William's pickup time (as recorded by FM) 16.10 leaves 7.50. that is 22.00 hours (is 10pm the time FF said he went to bed on 11th after drinking 2 glasses of red wine) until 5.50 the time that FF says he and William woke up on 12th. That means he and William woke up 7h.50 minutes after FF says he went to bed on 11th (and slept with William).

In the 60minutes doco when discussing the time that FM said William disappeared FF says 10.30, and FM whispers to him 10:15.

FF stated on 11th William went to be 'about 9.30pm' but I think it was closer to 9.35 or even 9.37 (which is the corrected time of the photos taken on 12th). If you take William going to bed was at 9.35pm (21.35) until 7:50 on 12th that is 10h15minutes.

9.35pm (21.35) on 11th to 10.35am on 12th (the time FF returned to 48) is precisely 13:00, alternatively from 13.00 on 11th (the time of the cancelled meeting that enabled travel to kendall on 11th instead of 12th) is 21h 35minutes to 10.35 the time FF returned to 48 Benaroon Drive on 12th! NB. 9.35am is the first corrected time of the 1st photo purportedly taken on 12th.

13.00 on 11th is 18h.40 minutes to 7.40am (created time of last photo) on 12th. They departed McDonald's Heathbrae on 11th at 18.40.

18:40 on 11th to 13.30 on 12th (time Atwood was to phone adoption team at DOCS/FACS to kickstart adoption process) is 18:50, which is the time they stopped on 11th to do the pull up session. If you deduct 12 hours from 18:50 it becomes 6:50 which is the time that FM initially said she eventually got out of bed on 12th.

13.00 on 11th to 6:50 on 12th is 17h 50 minutes and deduct 12-hours = 5h.50, which is the time FF said he and William woke up on 12th. She opened the curtains in the loungeroom just after she got out of bed on 12th.

In his 1st statement, FF stated apologies to the interviewing officers about how precise he kept his times and he stuttered whilst doing so.

 

[gymjam]

What does checking the time the night before William disappeared have to do with his disappearance?

it is all about TIMELINE and premeditation. Everybody is ok with discussing the photo timeline of the morning of 12th but wants to ignore the timeline from 11th forward. The COMPLETE timeline tells the full story.

 

[gymjam]

What does checking the time the night before William disappeared have to do with his disappearance?

she has worked out the timeline in advance and checking her phone as she departs mcdonalds to ensure everything is going according to her schedule.

she later talked about (and also stated) her annoyance that when she was speaking with her mother about their expected arrival at Kendall, that FF spoke over her which aggravated her. this shows she had worked out her schedule in advance.

 

[Awakening]

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Elderly neighbour tells Tyrrell inquest he remembers 'hearing the kids'

Paul Savage lived across the road from the house where the three-year-old was playing the day he disappeared.

7news.com.au

Paul Savage says he heard children (plural) playing between 9 and 9.30. Was that a mistake? Or was it a lie by Fosters?

In listening to the Lia Harris podcast episode 2 the apparent sequence of events children play that morning per Fosters was:

* Up early and fight over a toy inside
*FGM up later than usual ....usual time 7.30 so perhaps 7.45 says FF was not there at 8
*Both outside and riding bikes in driveway with FM...see car does U turn
*inside again but WT wanted to immediately go outside again and did with FM playing mummy monsters. FD inside play alone.This may be when FM spikes hand. Also attempts at tree climbing
*Back inside and breakfast
*Then all outside on verandah drawing and WT rolling dice (FGM says 1 hr). WT got bored
*Photos taken.
*Then WT ALONE playing Daddy tiger game growling
*Missing

Given the photo (if legit) was 9.37 and PS heard children (plural) playing between 9- 9.30 the only time that could possibly be was WT playing ALONE unless there was a short period where FD joined in on the verandah and surrounds or if we have been told lies about playing quietly alone. But I don't ever recall reading/ hearing that. FGM says she stayed and played alone if I recall. They were out on verandah for 1 hr from perhaps 9 -10 after breakfast from 8 -9 perhaps

There is an anomaly. PS says they were playing together yet the only time that did occur that morning was fighting over a toy inside very early and then next play on bikes driveway also very early before breakfast. Have the fosters changed the story to hide that FD and WT were in fact playing TOGETHER doing a chasing game perhaps? The story has been that from 9 approx that FD and WT were drawing and playing alone. Did PS hear the kids boisterous playing dice and running after dice. Unlikely too far away and noise sheltered behind the house.

The accuracy of what PS heard is important for two reasons.. Plural play supports legitimacy of 9.37 given the construction herein. Plural play anytime after bike rides before breakfast can't have been heard by PS
.....too early.....so it MUST have been plural play whilst in surrounds to verandah. I get this strong vibe that the fosters are hiding plural play happened to try and set up that FD and WT were also playing together at the time he went missing....or something happened to him. Strong motivation right there

 

[gymjam]

Elderly neighbour tells Tyrrell inquest he remembers 'hearing the kids'

Paul Savage lived across the road from the house where the three-year-old was playing the day he disappeared.

7news.com.au

Paul Savage says he heard children (plural) playing between 9 and 9.30. Was that a mistake? Or was it a lie by Fosters?

In listening to the Lia Harris podcast episode 2 the apparent sequence of events children play that morning per Fosters was:

* Up early and fight over a toy inside
*FGM up later than usual ....usual time 7.30 so perhaps 7.45 says FF was not there at 8
*Both outside and riding bikes in driveway with FM...see car does U turn
*inside again but WT wanted to immediately go outside again and did with FM playing mummy monsters. FD inside play alone.This may be when FM spikes hand. Also attempts at tree climbing
*Back inside and breakfast
*Then all outside on verandah drawing and WT rolling dice (FGM says 1 hr). WT got bored
*Photos taken.
*Then WT ALONE playing Daddy tiger game growling
*Missing

Given the photo (if legit) was 9.37 and PS heard children (plural) playing between 9- 9.30 the only time that could possibly be was WT playing ALONE unless there was a short period where FD joined in on the verandah and surrounds or if we have been told lies about playing quietly alone. But I don't ever recall reading/ hearing that. FGN says she stayed and played alone if I recall. They were out on verandah for 1 hr from perhaps 9 -10 after breakfast from 8 -9 perhaps

There is an anomaly. PS says they were playing together yet the only time that did occur that morning was fighting over a toy inside very early and then next play on bikes driveway also very early before breakfast. Have the fosters changed the story to hide that FD and WT were in fact playing TOGETHER doing a chasing game perhaps? The story has been that from 9 approx that FD and WT were drawing and playing alone. Did PS hear the kids boisterous playing dice and running after dice. Unlikely too far away and noise sheltered behind the house.

The accuracy of what PS heard is important for two reasons.. Plural play supports legitimacy of 9.37 given the construction herein. Plural play anytime after bike rides before breakfast can't have been heard by PS
.....too early.....so it MUST have been plural play whilst in surrounds to verandah. I get this strong vibe that the fosters are hiding plural play happened to try and set up that FD and WT were also playing together at the time he went missing....or something happened to him. Strong motivation right there

I understood that after FM and W did their playing and she attempted to have W climb a tree, she slipped and injured her right hand palm. She and W then made their was back to deck area and FM showed her mother the injury as gran was a retired nurse.

FM stated that after breakfast gran and L stayed inside to clean up after breakfast and FM and W went down to the garden but gran said she didn't know that FM and W went down to the garden.

So after FM and W went back up to the deck L then asked what they had been doing and made it known she too wanted to play in the garden so L and W and FM went to the garden to play for a short time, also collecting leaves for drawings. There are a couple of leaves on the deck in photos.

If you are formulating a timeline FM phoned Bill Spedding using landline at 9.04 and call was short left message. Owen phoned landline at 9.10 no answer left message and it is believed the bike riding wirh L and W with FM and gran supervising in top driveway was around this time.

I read somewhere but can't recall where that the car witnessed by FM and L that turned into the Miller's driveway may have been the postie or a temp fill-in using a private car.

Edit to add. Paul Savage also made a call at 9.04.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I understood that after FM and W did their playing and she attempted to have W climb a tree, she slipped and injured her right hand palm. She and W then made their was back to deck area and FM showed her mother the injury as gran was a retired nurse.

FM stated that after breakfast gran and L stayed inside to clean up after breakfast and FM and W went down to the garden but gran said she didn't know that FM and W went down to the garden.

So after FM and W went back up to the deck L then asked what they had been doing and made it known she too wanted to play in the garden so L and W and FM went to the garden to play for a short time, also collecting leaves for drawings. There are a couple of leaves on the deck in photos.

If you are formulating a timeline FM phoned Bill Spedding using landline at 9.04 and call was short left message. Owen phoned landline at 9.10 no answer left message and it is believed the bike riding wirh L and W with FM and gran supervising in top driveway was around this time.

I read somewhere but can't recall where that the car witnessed by FM and L that turned into the Miller's driveway may have been the postie or a temp fill-in using a private car.

Edit to add. Paul Savage also made a call at 9.04.

Thx for that. Yes aware of the two phone calls. I thought the PS call was 10?

Ok so the play b/w FM and WT was after breakfast than before. That then followed by all three play in garden which was likely what PS heard and in a sense corroborates the plural play between 9 -9.30 and likely the photos at 9.37. they go back to verandah and stay there drawing, dice, photos and finally daddy tiger WT alone

 

[LRitz]

Time on camera clock. Take 2:
The camera clock when purchased is set to Bali time, 2 hours less than AEST. (It is set manually so there is a slight error of 2 minutes and is 118 minutes behind instead of 120 minutes).
On return home the camera clock is still on Bali time, and is not reset. The time stamp on photos are now 118 minutes ( ~2hrs) behind the time they are actually taken. This is confirmed by the time on the TV show photo.
When police examine the camera, it is still on Bali time. ALL photos taken in Australia are then corrected by adding 118 minutes.

But, what if:
On the 12 September the camera clock is set to another time. For example: at 8:00 the clock (which would be on 6:00) is reset to 7:30. A photo taken at 8:00 would have time stamp of 7:30. If this was corrected by adding 118 minutes it would have a corrected time of 9:28. After the photos are taken the camera clock is put back to Bali time.

I am still just working through this idea myself so sorry if times and explanations have been a bit of a jumble. On my previous post I was thinking it would have to be changed by exactly one hour. But on reconsideration, it could have been changed to any time. It seems the camera would not have any recording of time changes. It would have to be accurately put back to the original time, but if it was out by seconds may not matter. The sunrise show would have only had the time displayed in minutes and not in seconds.

 

[31550]

Time on camera clock. Take 2:
The camera clock when purchased is set to Bali time, 2 hours less than AEST. (It is set manually so there is a slight error of 2 minutes and is 118 minutes behind instead of 120 minutes).
On return home the camera clock is still on Bali time, and is not reset. The time stamp on photos are now 118 minutes ( ~2hrs) behind the time they are actually taken. This is confirmed by the time on the TV show photo.
When police examine the camera, it is still on Bali time. ALL photos taken in Australia are then corrected by adding 118 minutes.

But, what if:
On the 12 September the camera clock is set to another time. For example: at 8:00 the clock (which would be on 6:00) is reset to 7:30. A photo taken at 8:00 would have time stamp of 7:30. If this was corrected by adding 118 minutes it would have a corrected time of 9:28. After the photos are taken the camera clock is put back to Bali time.

I am still just working through this idea myself so sorry if times and explanations have been a bit of a jumble. On my previous post I was thinking it would have to be changed by exactly one hour. But on reconsideration, it could have been changed to any time. It seems the camera would not have any recording of time changes. It would have to be accurately put back to the original time, but if it was out by seconds may not matter. The sunrise show would have only had the time displayed in minutes and not in seconds.

What you are suggesting is theoretically and practically possible: Move the clock forward 2 hours, snap 5 photos, move the clock back two hours. It remains with the exact same time discrepancy from AEST as when it was bought, coinciding with what has been observed by forensics.

But what would be the reason and motive for doing so? It could only be because you knew something was about to happen to William in the next two hours. William was physically alive and well in the photographs. This would be a massive conspiracy. Why? Furthermore, the light and shadows in the photographs would have to be consistent with the 'fake' time they were taken. Although there has been some debate around this in this forum, I believe forensic investigation would have confirmed the lighting to be consistent with an actual time of around 9:30 rather than significantly earlier. (The sun would not hit the verandah until well after 8am). If forensics found the lighting to be inconsistent with the time, or that the photographs had been edited, we would have heard about it by now.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

What you are suggesting is theoretically and practically possible: Move the clock forward 2 hours, snap 5 photos, move the clock back two hours. It remains with the exact same time discrepancy from AEST as when it was bought, coinciding with what has been observed by forensics.

But what would be the reason and motive for doing so? It could only be because you knew something was about to happen to William in the next two hours. William was physically alive and well in the photographs. This would be a massive conspiracy. Why? Furthermore, the light and shadows in the photographs would have to be consistent with the 'fake' time they were taken. Although there has been some debate around this in this forum, I believe forensic investigation would have confirmed the lighting to be consistent with an actual time of around 9:30 rather than significantly earlier. (The sun would not hit the verandah until well after 8am). If forensics found the lighting to be inconsistent with the time, or that the photographs had been edited, we would have heard about it by now.

Someone in this thread used a software calculation of sunrise degrees angle of sun at different times. I attempted manually as well before this happened that were very similar but mine was wrong being manual but a few degrees different

They were around ( from recollection)

7.39 am. 17° elevation
9.37 am 45° elevation

There was high treeline from where the sun would rise that time of the year that morning and close enough proximity to house to not yet be above it at 7.39. The sun wouldn't have hit the roof at all. It was up and creating light but gloomy where sun doesn't hit verandah roof. That is exactly as the picture looks for earlier time. At the 45° elevation it most definitely would be directly hitting the roof and in my view creating patches reflection on verandah floor / back wall. None of the pictures show this which was why I concluded very early my belief evidence shows it was the earlier time the pictures were taken.

Then someone commented that WT is looking at someone beside the person using camera which could only be FF who shouldn't be there at 9.37 but could have at 7.39. Red flag consistent with sun elevation/ patches. Human nature is such (especially with kids) they give eye contact for pictures .They don't look to the right where no one should be unless there is someone. Red flag

Then someone did a close up examination of WTs reflection on his eye saying that the reflection showed an image of a person toward where he was looking..now I couldn't exactly see that but could see something. Potential red flag someone was there.

FGM walk through errors

• refers to FF not there at 8. Red flag
• refers to 3 sitting at breakfast then corrects to 4. Red flag
• repeatedly refers to death. "Full of life"

"Deathly quiet" "bouncing out of skull" witness statement analysts would suggest these to be faux paus release of guilt. Red flag

• refers to what she was told by FF as what she did. They collaborated. Red flag
• she says FF knew WT missing when arrived home when we know his first words "why would I have him" to FM "do you have W". Red flag error FGM even adds ....."they must have spoken by phone". Disparity between stories because they hadn't gone over compatible accounts FGN v FF & FM. These errors come out when they elaborate in examples just like this. Red flag

You repeatedly give Police credit they would have done this or done that. Personally I think they aren't that skilled..so no I don't believe they checked any of this stuff


Now I also know that if you control the camera settings and you control the images, you can create undetectable changes to EXIF that creates a BALI alibi using the 2 hr time difference. Possible


The ONLY thing that throws a spanner into that is independent verification of proof of life of WT between 9- 9.30. close to the 9.37 photo time That is critical. The analysis on thread recently gives me some comfort that PS heard the kids playing (plural) when FM took them both to garden to play games after breakfast but before verandah which would correspond closely to 9- 9.30 period and becomes strong though not incontrovertible independent proof of life in this time period. PS isn't a very reliable witness.....hazy memory and changing his testimony to say there were two cars in street based on media reports..That places question mark..

 

[31550]

Someone in this thread used a software calculation of sunrise degrees angle of sun at different times. I attempted manually as well before this happened that were very similar but mine was wrong being manual but a few degrees different

They were around ( from recollection)

7.39 am. 17° elevation
9.37 am 45° elevation

There was high treeline from where the sun would rise that time of the year that morning and close enough proximity to house to not yet be above it at 7.39. The sun wouldn't have hit the roof at all. It was up and creating light but gloomy where sun doesn't hit verandah roof. That is exactly as the picture looks for earlier time. At the 45° elevation it most definitely would be directly hitting the roof and in my view creating patches reflection on verandah floor / back wall. None of the pictures show this which was why I concluded very early my belief evidence shows it was the earlier time the pictures were taken.

Then someone commented that WT is looking at someone beside the person using camera which could only be FF who shouldn't be there at 9.37 but could have at 7.39. Red flag consistent with sun elevation/ patches. Human nature is such (especially with kids) they give eye contact for pictures .They don't look to the right where no one should be unless there is someone. Red flag

Then someone did a close up examination of WTs reflection on his eye saying that the reflection showed an image of a person toward where he was looking..now I couldn't exactly see that but could see something. Potential red flag someone was there.

FGM walk through errors

• refers to FF not there at 8. Red flag
• refers to 3 sitting at breakfast then corrects to 4. Red flag
• repeatedly refers to death. "Full of life"

"Deathly quiet" "bouncing out of skull" witness statement analysts would suggest these to be faux paus release of guilt. Red flag

• refers to what she was told by FF as what she did. They collaborated. Red flag
• she says FF knew WT missing when arrived home when we know his first words "why would I have him" to FM "do you have W". Red flag error FGM even adds ....."they must have spoken by phone". Disparity between stories because they hadn't gone over compatible accounts FGN v FF & FM. These errors come out when they elaborate in examples just like this. Red flag

You repeatedly give Police credit they would have done this or done that. Personally I think they aren't that skilled..so no I don't believe they checked any of this stuff


Now I also know that if you control the camera settings and you control the images, you can create undetectable changes to EXIF that creates a BALI alibi using the 2 hr time difference. Possible


The ONLY thing that throws a spanner into that is independent verification of proof of life of WT between 9- 9.30. close to the 9.37 photo time That is critical. The analysis on thread recently gives me some comfort that PS heard the kids playing (plural) when FM took them both to garden to play games after breakfast but before verandah which would correspond closely to 9- 9.30 period and becomes strong though not incontrovertible independent proof of life in this time period. PS isn't a very reliable witness.....hazy memory and changing his testimony to say there were two cars in street based on media reports..That places question mark..

The elevation of the sun is not as important as the angle. As long as the sun was high enough to be seen above the treeline (which it would at both times). But at 7:30 the sun would not be hitting the verandah, which faces roughly north. It would be partially hidden by the eastern side of the house (with the balcony). At 9:30, it would be higher in the sky and at the right angle to bathe the verandah in light. We can see William's face in full light. Also, it's light enough for FGM to read the paper (doubt if she could do this at 7:30).

Your assertion that William was "looking at someone" is pure supposition. 3YO kids don't always look at cameras. In other shots he is looking elsewhere, but not at any person in particular. Maybe he's just throwing his head around as he roars? This doesn't prove anyone else was present. The image of a person reflected in the photo is a myth, I am afraid. Doesn't exist.

Yes, FGMs testimony is riddled with inconsistencies. She was elderly, stressed and several days had passed. She may have also been coaxed or confused by other people or events. All eyewitness testimony needs to be taken with a grain of salt. So you can't take Savage's recollections as fact either. He is also elderly and his testimony hasn't been corroborated. His wife was never formally interviewed.

Yes, the police missed a lot of things early on, but we know for a fact they had the camera and photos in Sept 2014, and have had them for 9 years. So even if they didn't forensically examine them immediately, they have had the last 9 years to do so. This is one piece of information which has not been lost or compromised.

 

[LRitz]

What you are suggesting is theoretically and practically possible: Move the clock forward 2 hours, snap 5 photos, move the clock back two hours. It remains with the exact same time discrepancy from AEST as when it was bought, coinciding with what has been observed by forensics.

But what would be the reason and motive for doing so? It could only be because you knew something was about to happen to William in the next two hours. William was physically alive and well in the photographs. This would be a massive conspiracy. Why? Furthermore, the light and shadows in the photographs would have to be consistent with the 'fake' time they were taken. Although there has been some debate around this in this forum, I believe forensic investigation would have confirmed the lighting to be consistent with an actual time of around 9:30 rather than significantly earlier. (The sun would not hit the verandah until well after 8am). If forensics found the lighting to be inconsistent with the time, or that the photographs had been edited, we would have heard about it by now.

The light and shadows are consistent AROUND 9:30. Are they consistent with a time a bit earlier, say for example 9:15?

No, not move the clock 2 hours. If it was moved 2 hours them the time on the photo would be 9:39. When all the photos are corrected from Bali time to AEST by adding 118 minutes the corrected time would read as 11:37 which is plainly wrong.

But what if the clock had been put forward, for example, just 20 or 40 minute. Example. At 9:15 the camera should be recording the time as 7:13. But if the clock was put forward 26 minutes the new time on camera clock would be 7:39. Take photos with the 7:39 time. Then reset the clock back to Bali time. The photo at 9:15 would have a time stamp of 7:39. Then this is corrected by adding 118 minutes to record the "correct" time of the photo as 9:37. (Hope my maths was correct).

Even though forensics have looked at the photos, could they have got it wrong? They reported their findings, accepted by coroner and then going forward, everyone just refers back the the first forensics. At that time the foster family may not have been the main suspects, so fitted in with what the police wished to hear as well. Fresh eyes.

 

[31550]

The light and shadows are consistent AROUND 9:30. Are they consistent with a time a bit earlier, say for example 9:15?

No, not move the clock 2 hours. If it was moved 2 hours them the time on the photo would be 9:39. When all the photos are corrected from Bali time to AEST by adding 118 minutes the corrected time would read as 11:37 which is plainly wrong.

But what if the clock had been put forward, for example, just 20 or 40 minute. Example. At 9:15 the camera should be recording the time as 7:13. But if the clock was put forward 26 minutes the new time on camera clock would be 7:39. Take photos with the 7:39 time. Then reset the clock back to Bali time. The photo at 9:15 would have a time stamp of 7:39. Then this is corrected by adding 118 minutes to record the "correct" time of the photo as 9:37. (Hope my maths was correct).

Even though forensics have looked at the photos, could they have got it wrong? They reported their findings, accepted by coroner and then going forward, everyone just refers back the the first forensics. At that time the foster family may not have been the main suspects, so fitted in with what the police wished to hear as well. Fresh eyes.

What would be the point of fudging the clock 15 or 20 minutes?

 

[LRitz]

What would be the point of fudging the clock 15 or 20 minutes?

What if it was more than 20 minutes and the photo was taken around 8:50. Would this be before FF left the house? Would a photo at that time be consistent with the light and shadows?

 

[CodyRose]

I still don’t see what FM’s motive would be for covering up the accidental death of a beloved child, if the death was caused by a minor or incapacitated persons?

Still means that she or another responsible person wasn't supervising

 

[Awakening]

What if it was more than 20 minutes and the photo was taken around 8:50. Would this be before FF left the house? Would a photo at that time be consistent with the light and shadows?

But that would mean you intended to kill the child.

Why bother changing the time of the camera by half an hour or so?

When a child goes missing, there is rarely a photo that is taken the very day they went missing, let alone within an hour or two of going missing.

So not sure why a murderer would bother with a proof of life photo let alone fudge the time by half an hour.

You can be extremely tech savvy but there’s always a risk the police have better technology who would determine you messed with the time, and then you are right in the line of suspicion. Doesn’t seem worth the risk.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The elevation of the sun is not as important as the angle. As long as the sun was high enough to be seen above the treeline (which it would at both times). But at 7:30 the sun would not be hitting the verandah, which faces roughly north. It would be partially hidden by the eastern side of the house (with the balcony). At 9:30, it would be higher in the sky and at the right angle to bathe the verandah in light. We can see William's face in full light. Also, it's light enough for FGM to read the paper (doubt if she could do this at 7:30).

Your assertion that William was "looking at someone" is pure supposition. 3YO kids don't always look at cameras. In other shots he is looking elsewhere, but not at any person in particular. Maybe he's just throwing his head around as he roars? This doesn't prove anyone else was present. The image of a person reflected in the photo is a myth, I am afraid. Doesn't exist.

Yes, FGMs testimony is riddled with inconsistencies. She was elderly, stressed and several days had passed. She may have also been coaxed or confused by other people or events. All eyewitness testimony needs to be taken with a grain of salt. So you can't take Savage's recollections as fact either. He is also elderly and his testimony hasn't been corroborated. His wife was never formally interviewed

Yes, the police missed a lot of things early on, but we know for a fact they had the camera and photos in Sept 2014, and have had them for 9 years. So even if they didn't forensically examine them immediately, they have had the last 9 years to do so. This is one piece of information which has not been lost or compromised.

With respect on my calculations and at 17% it may not have cleared the trees yet.. yes I've done those calculations based upon pictures and estimates of distances and heights and placement of trees even.. can't be conclusive because it's estimates but I was satisfied it wouldn't yet clear the trees..my thing is math.

I recall this argument being raised about sun on his face. Not sure what you are looking at but I don't see any sun in that verandah at all let alone on one side of his face. Unconvinced

All your suggestions regarding movements in front of camera are possible. But what is VERY clear is that young kids don't growl at open space neither next to a camera nor around the corner when no one is there. I don't accept that at all. So what is entirely possible is that he was growling at someone there....someone who plays the daddy tiger game with him which is exactly when he does growl. Agree to disagree I'm afraid..

Whether there was or wasn't a reflection in his is questionable which I had already suggested. By same token I can't prove there wasn't. If you can I don't know how..

Yes FGM is elderly and that creates perspective in interpreting that evidence. But I still see inconsistencies which may be explicable by the red flags im suggesting. I don't know if PS hearing what he did is persuasive or not. He must have been 75 metres away so how much can he have heard and how could he distinguish it was two than one?. Must be questionable which means the only proof of life of independent nature is likewise.

On what I've read it's questionable whether a forensic examination of the camera would show anything of merit to conclude anything incriminating whether they had the opportunity 9 years or not. As I said in a recent post if they haven't been able to make forensic conclusions then it's possible they have assumed the BALI alibi in time difference is valid when perhaps it's not. Neither you or I can conclude this in a vacuum so your attempt to do so is in my view flawed..

 

[Awakening]

With respect on my calculations and at 17% it may not have cleared the trees yet.. yes I've done those calculations based upon pictures and estimates of distances and heights and placement of trees even.. can't be conclusive because it's estimates but I was satisfied it wouldn't yet clear the trees..my thing is math.

I recall this argument being raised about sun on his face. Not sure what you are looking at but I don't see any sun in that verandah at all let alone on one side of his face. Unconvinced

All your suggestions regarding movements in front of camera are possible. But what is VERY clear is that young kids don't growl at open space neither next to a camera nor around the corner when no one is there. I don't accept that at all. So what is entirely possible is that he was growling at someone there....someone who plays the daddy tiger game with him which is exactly when he does growl. Agree to disagree I'm afraid..

Whether there was or wasn't a reflection in his is questionable which I had already suggested. By same token I can't prove there wasn't. If you can I don't know how..

Yes FGM is elderly and that creates perspective in interpreting that evidence. But I still see inconsistencies which may be explicable by the red flags im suggesting. I don't know if PS hearing what he did is persuasive or not. He must have been 75 metres away so how much can he have heard and how could he distinguish it was two than one?. Must be questionable which means the only proof of life of independent nature is likewise.

On what I've read it's questionable whether a forensic examination of the camera would show anything of merit to conclude anything incriminating whether they had the opportunity 9 years or not. As I said in a recent post if they haven't been able to make forensic conclusions then it's possible they have assumed the BALI alibi in time difference is valid when perhaps it's not. Neither you or I can conclude this in a vacuum so your attempt to do so is in my view flawed..

I disagree, kids growl at open space. Particularly when they are a tiger, a lion, a monster and caught up in their imagination.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

I disagree, kids growl at open space. Particularly when they are a tiger, a lion, a monster and caught up in their imagination.

In my experience imaginative play is used by children but usually with a focal point for the pretend. Toys..inanimate objects that become something ....pretend to have super powers. Role playing. With other children or adults..They don't play with or growl at an imaginary thing/ person that isn't there. Agree to disagree

I'll see if I can find some reference that supports the distinction I make