Current Disappearance of 3yo William Tyrrell Pt 2 * FM guilty of assault & intimidation

Remove this Banner Ad

Reader mode
Continued from PART 1

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 *Not Guilty
  • Stalking &/or Intimidation on both *Guilty
  • Dummy bidding real estate fraud *Guilty
TIMELINE

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

Operation Arkstone
 
Last edited:
31550 said:
Are you sure you aren't attributing the shadow cast by the yellow tub to the water bottle? I think it's the tub casting the shadow.

And if the photos were taken on another day, and the timestamps changed to provide an alibi, why didn't the perpetrator set the time to 9:30 am or 10:00? Why set the timestamps to 7:39? And why not fix the time on the camera at the same time to ensure there was no debate about time discrepancies?

Sorry I think I quoted the wrong post.
Click to expand...
It's the time she uploaded the photos to the device? Made a mistake then tried to correct the time.
I showed everyone how to do it in an earlier post.

Did you ever wonder why all photos seem to be taken about the same time apart and what they are doing actually changes a lot. She uploaded them one at time. The actual photos may have been separated by a longer time.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

truecrimepath said:
Because they are hopeless. Look at the whole case.
Click to expand...
Even if FM is responsible and photos are genuine, I can’t see someone disposing of William with that outfit on. It’s too bright and identifiable if say dug up by animals or something.
I don’t get the shoes thing neither.
If William wasn’t wearing shoes wouldn’t it be easier to say that then dispose of them as well.
 
truecrimepath said:
When the FF walkthrough it was gone. All the plants had disappeared in the realestate photos.
Click to expand...
FGM sold the property to a friend. That person then sold it on. It was advertised on realestate.com

This is the only shot of the verandah in FF's walkthrough. Shows all the pot plants in place, it doesn't go as far as the raised flower planter.

1728632748536.png
 
Last edited:
truecrimepath said:
It's the time she uploaded the photos to the device she used to fake it. Made a mistake then tried to correct the time.
I showed everyone how to do it in an earlier post.

Did you ever wonder why all photos seem to be taken about the same time apart and what they are doing actually changes a lot. She uploaded them one at time. The actual photos may have been separated by a longer time.
Click to expand...
How does this theory fit with the other photos on the camera, including the 'Sunrise' photo?
 
Something is bothering me. I don't know if it's important or just nonsense.

My partner is a semi professional photographer. Does mostly landscape but weddings too to get some $s.

I'm privy to edits she does.. Anyhow she often comes across ugly things in an otherwise great picture. When she does she uses what she refers to as her dab tool. By dabbing repeatedly on what you don't want it ultimately eliminates the thing even as big as a person..One time in a wedding shot she removed wet spots from rain on the grooms coat. I know.....obsessive!!! I've often seen her do it. She tells me that when she finally gets up the nerve to get rid of me she's going to dab me out of ALL of photos together.....BITCH!!! I digress.

When she does it the nature of the tool is such that the background replaces the space eliminated. Iif it's water....more water.....if it's plants more plants ......if it's bricks more bricks..She tells me the only problem is that sometimes the replaced spot shows signs of the dabbing because what's replaced is out of kilter

I keep looking at that wall over near the planter stand close to the floor boards..The bricks actually overlap onto the boards in a way that appears odd to me. Bricks shouldn't overlap floor. Then as you go up the wall there are spots where the brick work ceases to be identifiable bricks. I can no longer see the pattern and goes a little blurred..these are signs.. I think the dab tool has been used to eliminate something from the picture..Something that perhaps belonged in the shot (if it was June) but not now.

Have a look for yourselves guys.
 
Last edited:
Angry Red Bull said:
Something is bothering me. I don't know if it's important or just nonsense.

My partner is a semi professional photographer. Does mostly landscape but weddings too to get some $s.

I'm privy to edits she does.. Anyhow she often comes across ugly things in an otherwise great picture. When she does she uses what she refers to as her dab tool. By dabbing repeatedly on what you don't want it ultimately eliminates the thing even as big as a person..One time in a wedding shot she removed wet spots from rain on the grooms coat. I know.....obsessive!!! I've often seen her do it. She tells me that when she finally gets up the nerve to get rid of me she's going to dab me out of ALL of photos together.....BITCH!!! I digress.

When she does it the nature of the tool is such that the background replaces the space eliminated. Iif it's water....more water.....if it's plants more plants ......if it's bricks more bricks..She tells me the only problem is that sometimes the replaced spot shows signs of the dabbing because what's replaced is out of kilter

I keep looking at that wall over near the planter stand close to the floor boards..The bricks actually overlap onto the boards in a way that appears odd to me. Bricks shouldn't overlap floor. Then as you go up the wall there are spots where the brick work ceases to be identifiable bricks. I can no longer see the pattern and goes a little blurred..these are signs.. I think the dab tool has been used to eliminate something from the picture..Something that perhaps belonged in the shot (if it was June) but not now.

Have a look for yourselves guys.
Click to expand...
Yes, I see what you mean. I think it is just that the bricklayers have laid the bricks horizontal, but the verandah needs to have a certain amount of "fall" to allow water to drain off. So the bricks seem to be a bit uneven, but I think it is actually the timber floor of the verandah that drops away slightly.
 
Angry Red Bull said:
Something is bothering me. I don't know if it's important or just nonsense.

My partner is a semi professional photographer. Does mostly landscape but weddings too to get some $s.

I'm privy to edits she does.. Anyhow she often comes across ugly things in an otherwise great picture. When she does she uses what she refers to as her dab tool. By dabbing repeatedly on what you don't want it ultimately eliminates the thing even as big as a person..One time in a wedding shot she removed wet spots from rain on the grooms coat. I know.....obsessive!!! I've often seen her do it. She tells me that when she finally gets up the nerve to get rid of me she's going to dab me out of ALL of photos together.....BITCH!!! I digress.

When she does it the nature of the tool is such that the background replaces the space eliminated. Iif it's water....more water.....if it's plants more plants ......if it's bricks more bricks..She tells me the only problem is that sometimes the replaced spot shows signs of the dabbing because what's replaced is out of kilter

I keep looking at that wall over near the planter stand close to the floor boards..The bricks actually overlap onto the boards in a way that appears odd to me. Bricks shouldn't overlap floor. Then as you go up the wall there are spots where the brick work ceases to be identifiable bricks. I can no longer see the pattern and goes a little blurred..these are signs.. I think the dab tool has been used to eliminate something from the picture..Something that perhaps belonged in the shot (if it was June) but not now.

Have a look for yourselves guys.
Click to expand...
1000 percent. And for what it’s worth, I know for a fact that the fosters have had photo editing software. I mean, they’ve sold it second hand on Gumtree.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Angry Red Bull said:
Something is bothering me. I don't know if it's important or just nonsense.

My partner is a semi professional photographer. Does mostly landscape but weddings too to get some $s.

I'm privy to edits she does.. Anyhow she often comes across ugly things in an otherwise great picture. When she does she uses what she refers to as her dab tool. By dabbing repeatedly on what you don't want it ultimately eliminates the thing even as big as a person..One time in a wedding shot she removed wet spots from rain on the grooms coat. I know.....obsessive!!! I've often seen her do it. She tells me that when she finally gets up the nerve to get rid of me she's going to dab me out of ALL of photos together.....BITCH!!! I digress.

When she does it the nature of the tool is such that the background replaces the space eliminated. Iif it's water....more water.....if it's plants more plants ......if it's bricks more bricks..She tells me the only problem is that sometimes the replaced spot shows signs of the dabbing because what's replaced is out of kilter

I keep looking at that wall over near the planter stand close to the floor boards..The bricks actually overlap onto the boards in a way that appears odd to me. Bricks shouldn't overlap floor. Then as you go up the wall there are spots where the brick work ceases to be identifiable bricks. I can no longer see the pattern and goes a little blurred..these are signs.. I think the dab tool has been used to eliminate something from the picture..Something that perhaps belonged in the shot (if it was June) but not now.

Have a look for yourselves guys.
Click to expand...
I’ve always thought the that wall looked weird, whether it’s the structure or the photo not sure but would be a good reason to edit it if there was something there in the photo at the time that’s no longer at the home.
 
Angry Red Bull said:
Something is bothering me. I don't know if it's important or just nonsense.

My partner is a semi professional photographer. Does mostly landscape but weddings too to get some $s.

I'm privy to edits she does.. Anyhow she often comes across ugly things in an otherwise great picture. When she does she uses what she refers to as her dab tool. By dabbing repeatedly on what you don't want it ultimately eliminates the thing even as big as a person..One time in a wedding shot she removed wet spots from rain on the grooms coat. I know.....obsessive!!! I've often seen her do it. She tells me that when she finally gets up the nerve to get rid of me she's going to dab me out of ALL of photos together.....BITCH!!! I digress.

When she does it the nature of the tool is such that the background replaces the space eliminated. Iif it's water....more water.....if it's plants more plants ......if it's bricks more bricks..She tells me the only problem is that sometimes the replaced spot shows signs of the dabbing because what's replaced is out of kilter

I keep looking at that wall over near the planter stand close to the floor boards..The bricks actually overlap onto the boards in a way that appears odd to me. Bricks shouldn't overlap floor. Then as you go up the wall there are spots where the brick work ceases to be identifiable bricks. I can no longer see the pattern and goes a little blurred..these are signs.. I think the dab tool has been used to eliminate something from the picture..Something that perhaps belonged in the shot (if it was June) but not now.

Have a look for yourselves guys.
Click to expand...
The pattern does look unusual. Maybe someone has been edited out.
 
truecrimepath said:
The pattern does look unusual. Maybe someone has been edited out.
Click to expand...

If something has been edited we'll never know for sure because it's now gone. The mere fact such an edit was done, if true, and if it can be proven is indication of capacity to deceive. it would still form part of police case from that perspective.

The alternative is that it's legitimate. Perhaps it was part of the work to be done by GO.....the floorboards having sunk a little through lost support like Lady O suggested.

Does anyone know the nature of the work GO was going to do?
 
Last edited:
william-tyrell.jpeg

Cuspids erupt at about 19 months but can take some time to fully descend. Every Childs teeth is different and there is a large variation in eruption times. The second lower molar has erupted (21 -31 months).Notice the gum above his left upper cuspid to show its size.

See how small the upper cuspids are. As you get older the teeth round off with wear and the gaps increase from 3 years on as the Maxilla grows. Look at the following photo of William on his third birthday in late June, 2014. The Cuspids are larger and fully formed. There are small gaps between his 1st and 2nd incisors which would be expected to increase.

Image.jpeg

The following photo shows the size of his upper cuspids better 2-3 months before his disappearance.

IMG_0207.JPG



We don't know what happened to his teeth following this date. The teeth can be rounded off and gaps should increase between teeth but they generally don't get a lot smaller.

The following photo shows Williams teeth rounding off.

IMG_0212.jpeg



In summary, I looked at all the images of Williams teeth to try and establish when the photo was taken.
 
Angry Red Bull said:
If something has been edited we'll never know for sure because it's now gone. The mere fact such an edit was done, if true, and if it can be proven is indication of capacity to deceive. it would still form part of police case from that perspective.

The alternative is that it's legitimate. Perhaps it was part of the work to be done by GO.....the floorboards having sunk a little through lost support like Lady O suggested.

Does anyone know the nature of the work GO was going to do?
Click to expand...
look at the leg of the planter pot. Is it mid air?
 

I don't know..I've reproduced the photo link here. What I discern now I look again is that there are TWO shadow reflections off the planter stand and off the the pot stand close by. One is I suspect natural reflection of sun in the direction you say.

The other is from an unnatural light source which I suspect is a outdoor light high on the wall beyond and which casts a shadow toward the photographer.

The shot was an early morning shot after sunrise OR on a overcast day where the light had remained on I suspect.

If there is an unnatural light source this needs to be factored into outcomes on all shadows.
 
Angry Red Bull said:

I don't know..I've reproduced the photo link here. What I discern now I look again is that there are TWO shadow reflections off the planter stand and off the the pot stand close by. One is I suspect natural reflection of sun in the direction you say.

The other is from an unnatural light source which I suspect is a outdoor light high on the wall beyond and which casts a shadow toward the photographer.

The shot was an early morning shot after sunrise OR on a overcast day where the light had remained on I suspect.

If there is an unnatural light source this needs to be factored into outcomes on all shadows.
Click to expand...
The major shadow towards you is definitely the backlighting. I look at some images like this one and think the sun is really high up, if it's in fact around midday in summer. But the clothing puts me off. Image 1.jpeg
 
Anyone want evidence he had two different Spiderman suits? Look at the web pattern on the sleeve and neck.

Image 1.jpeg


william-tyrell.jpeg

You can look at something hiding in plain sight. Could this be an optical illusion? Has he changed tops?
 
truecrimepath said:
Anyone want evidence he had two different Spiderman suits? Look at the web pattern on the sleeve and neck.

View attachment 2138832


View attachment 2138833

You can look at something hiding in plain sight. Could this be an optical illusion? Has he changed tops?
Click to expand...
They look the same to me. Can you post a side-by-side image so we can see what you mean?

Re the suit - it was allegedly purchased in Bali around August 2014, so any photos before this date could not be the same suit. Police demonstrated a suit 'similar' to the one allegedly worn, but seemingly could not provide an identical one. This indicates the suit is not readily available for sale in Australia. Not one person or clothing supplier came forward and said, "Oh yes, that's the same as the one we got our kid from Target/Kmart/wherever". This suggests the suit was indeed purchased in Bali. Also no witness ever came forward and said, "I saw William in that suit before the fosters went to Bali".

Now the suggestion is the suit was purchased in Bali especially to replace the one he had grown out of, so that the photos taken a few months earlier could be subsequently used as proof of life? Ridiculous - for such a perfect crime you would buy the EXACT SAME SUIT again in Australia, just a larger size. You wouldn't buy a different style or pattern!

Re the teeth- the bicuspids seem approximately the same size in the birthday photos and the verandah photos - its the two CENTRAL front teeth which are larger - they are LARGEST in the 'roar' photo, and larger in proportion to the bicuspids. This indicates to me that the 'roar' photo is later than the birthday photo. I am not a dental expert, but common sense suggests to me that bigger front teeth means older.

Finally, and I've mentioned this before, the whole 'fake photo' conspiracy theory is just too complicated. If they wanted to 'off' William, all they needed to do was to take the 4WD a little way into the forest, then walk him to one of the various little-known mineshafts, and toss him in. Then make up the story that they were picnicking and he wandered off. Simple, plausible. Gives them plenty of time to dispose of evidence elsewhere. They could delay reporting him missing for a while with the alibi that they were searching for him, had to walk back to vehicle or FGM house for phones etc. There would be no scent for dogs near the property. They could misdirect police to a different part of the forest. Simple, believable, he would never be found. No need to make things worse by faking evidence which might actually bring you undone.
 
truecrimepath said:
Anyone want evidence he had two different Spiderman suits? Look at the web pattern on the sleeve and neck.
Click to expand...
It's not possible to come to your conclusion due to the different aspects that the photos were taken from, showing different sides of the suit.

I think you just destroyed your credibility somewhat here.
 
Last edited:
BFew said:
It's not possible to come to your conclusion due to the different aspects that the photos were taken from, showing different sides of the suit.

I think you just destroyed your credibility somewhat here.
Click to expand...
That's a bit much. Look at the pattern. One fabric has black stripes in two directions. The other has stripes in one direction only.
 
Reader mode

Remove this Banner Ad

Current Disappearance of 3yo William Tyrrell Pt 2 * FM guilty of assault & intimidation

Similar threads

Kurve
Current Disappearance of 19yo Jay Slater - Tenerife
Replies
18
Views
798
A11dAtP0w3R
A11dAtP0w3R
Kurve
Unsolved The Disappearance of Mum Bronwyn Winfield - NSW * Hedley Thomas podcast
2 3 4
Replies
82
Views
5K
Dogs_R_Us
Dogs_R_Us
J
Barry Cable: Found guilty of child abuse in civil case, pleading not guilty to criminal charges, honours have been revoked
Replies
4
Views
494
Teagueeee15
T
Kurve
The Disappearance of 12yo Lisa Mott - WA
Replies
8
Views
1K
zedx
zedx
Kurve
Unsolved Disappearance Murder of 14yo Marilyn Wallman of McKay - INQUEST
Replies
20
Views
1K
Bunk Moreland
Bunk Moreland
Kurve
Current Fisherman charged with slavery, torture & assault offences against deckhands - Gulf of Carpentaria
Replies
0
Views
546
Kurve
Kurve
MrsBlueSky
Found guilty after putting up a bizarre defence
Replies
7
Views
781
Rob R
R

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top