Current Disappearance of 3yo William Tyrrell Pt 3 * Coroner's Hearings Concluded

[Kurve]

Continued from PART 2

Criminal charges:

• 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

Please type names out in full for those who are not covered by suppression orders.

For those covered by suppression orders, please use the following to indicate:

FM - Foster Mother
FF - Foster Father
FGM - Foster Grandmother
FD - Foster Daughter
FPs - Foster Parents

Up to you if you wish to refer to them as former fosters but please write it in full, strictly using the above. No deviations.

Other initials posters will use informally but should not are:

BCR - Batar Creek Road
FA - Frank Abbott
MW - Michelle White
SFR - Strike Force Rosann
AMS - Anne Maree Sharpley
CCR - Cobb and Co Road
GO - Geoff Owens
One even reduced bike riding to - BR
COG - Consciousness of guilt. Like WHO KNEW?

 

[Lady O]

I was able to determine that there was a shadow from the planter legs in the picture in a direction indicating an outside light was on just off the verandah heading toward the carport. Yes one is there. That is what causes this light reflection In my opinion. The wall is indeed blurred and the juncture where wall meets wooden floor overlaps when it shouldn't..I highly suspect something was deleted from the photo at that spot. It extends up the wall. You can detect a changed blurred brick pattern that supports that suggestion too

You can use a dab tool to get rid of entire objects in a picture. I think that is what has been used. The software replaces the object with surrounds but it won't match a brick pattern and wall / floor overlaps may show signs

The flaw I see in your argument is that this would mean the fosters needed to edit the photos before they handed them over. Presumably they would have given the Police the photos taken that morning, so I can't see how they could edit them and erase any trace of the edit from the camera.

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The Crabbs testimony about the car (I recite in my post 583) says they heard the car coming up the street fast. Did a U-turn, pause and then move on again..

It doesn't sound like FM simply leaving the car port nor does it sound like an opportunistic abductor who wouldn't drive fast..

What it DOES sound like is someone waiting by the side of the road to be picked up and the speed up the steet shows clear intent and purpose. They knew a pickup was required. Can that be compatible with an abduction the target has already been grabbed and the escape vehicle was called to provide the transport. Then the description matches.

That isnt compatible with my theory because the entire evidence points there but in isolation it is compatible with a two person abduction perhaps

 

[Angry Red Bull]

The flaw I see in your argument is that this would mean the fosters needed to edit the photos before they handed them over. Presumably they would have given the Police the photos taken that morning, so I can't see how they could edit them and erase any trace of the edit from the camera.

Thanks Lady O. I will look at that if I can.. You are certainly right the edits had to have happened before the camera was handed in.

If I recall the initial photo provided wasn't the later Spiderman photo but a much earlier one where he was much younger. That has been criticised rightfully here because you'd want the current one especially in suit. But perhaps they gave the other photo from their computer than the camera knowing it was a problem and gave them time for edits..My initial thoughts.

if there are holes in my suggestion I welcome it being tested and discarded.

If it was entirely innocent you'd just hand over the camera right? It is after all the life of a child!!! You wouldn't go on computer to retrieve stored photos and if you did you would sinc first and provide the latest..the behaviour is once again self incriminating. For that matter you just remove and hand over SD card from camera which they didn't do

 

[stormbird]

Did the NSW Crime Commission fully (re)investigate William's case? Or did it just provide the coercive hearings to get evidence for the NSW Police Force?

I'm wondering whether the coroner has the option of sending the case to the NSW Crime Commission's Operations Division (which can investigate serious crimes such as homicide) instead of sending it back to the NSW Police Force Unsolved Homicide Unit.

I was reading about the Queensland Police investigation of Tiahleigh Palmer's death and in that case the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission (which I'm only guessing is similar to the NSW Crime Commission) used coercive hearings to extract evidence from various persons-of-interest (including two men who turned out to have no involvement in the case - one of them was examined for two days). An article in the Courier Mail says:

"Nearly 20 per cent of all coercive hearings [by the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC)] now relate to murder investigations. [...]

But the CCC can’t bluster into any investigation. There are very strict rules relating to any involvement in a criminal matter. Forcing someone to answer questions, threatening them with jail if they won’t comply, is a massive breach of human rights – as well as basic fundamental legal rights. It is not done lightly. [...]

Of the various categories that can invoke the power of the CCC, one is the “vulnerable victims” category. And that’s what Tiahleigh Palmer came under. As a child, she was considered a vulnerable victim."

"Justice for Tiahleigh Part 2: Investigators cast the net for clues", Courier Mail, 15 Jun 2018 (paywalled)

Whether the Qld CCC investigated Tiahleigh's case or just provided the coercive hearings wasn't made clear.

 

[LRitz]

I agree. It HAS to have been altered. It isn't even exactly two hours.

7:39:54
Corrected to 9:37:44

The camera has a clock. The time on the clock is set by a person. It is not used for telling the time. On a small personal camera it is used to keep a track of date and time photo is taken. How often would it be necessary to know the exact time a photo was taken. So the setting of the time is not that important. It could have been set off a reference clock / watch that was wrong by 2 minutes. I do not see how this is proof that it has to be altered. It was just not set exactly 100% to Bali time. If it was set exactly to Bali time it would have been the 2 hours of the time zone difference.

There are some questions. If there was no planning, all coincidences. Who set the time in the first place on the camera, the photo taken of the time on the TV show - that supports the Bali time setting before the 12 Sept. why the photos were taken on the 12 at 9:37 that just happen to give an alibi to the FF for something that has not happened yet. Possible or impossible.

 

[Kurve]

Do we think the cops may have been responsible for correcting the time when they downloaded the images?

 

[LRitz]

I was able to determine that there was a shadow from the planter legs in the picture in a direction indicating an outside light was on just off the verandah heading toward the carport. Yes one is there. That is what causes this light reflection In my opinion. The wall is indeed blurred and the juncture where wall meets wooden floor overlaps when it shouldn't..I highly suspect something was deleted from the photo at that spot. It extends up the wall. You can detect a changed blurred brick pattern that supports that suggestion too

You can use a dab tool to get rid of entire objects in a picture. I think that is what has been used. The software replaces the object with surrounds but it won't match a brick pattern and wall / floor overlaps may show signs

Are think there are shadows but also some reflections on the polished / lacquered wooden floor boards which could cause some confusion. The reflections are in different directions and have colour, like from the pink water bottle.
Also I assume forensics would have looked at photoshopping evidence.

 

[Lady O]

7:39:54
Corrected to 9:37:44

The camera has a clock. The time on the clock is set by a person. It is not used for telling the time. On a small personal camera it is used to keep a track of date and time photo is taken. How often would it be necessary to know the exact time a photo was taken. So the setting of the time is not that important. It could have been set off a reference clock / watch that was wrong by 2 minutes. I do not see how this is proof that it has to be altered. It was just not set exactly 100% to Bali time. If it was set exactly to Bali time it would have been the 2 hours of the time zone difference.

There are some questions. If there was no planning, all coincidences. Who set the time in the first place on the camera, the photo taken of the time on the TV show - that supports the Bali time setting before the 12 Sept. why the photos were taken on the 12 at 9:37 that just happen to give an alibi to the FF for something that has not happened yet. Possible or impossible.

We presume, although we don't know this for sure, it was Police that changed it on the camera on the advice of the fosters who explained it had been bought in Bali and the time unaltered.

As Kurve said, the corrected time might be when it was downloaded by the Police. Which leaves 7.39.54 as the created time, and the Sunrise photo on the TV as proof of this 2ish hr discrepancy. However, there is always a possibility the Sunrise program was recorded and just happened to coincide with the two missing hours. This seems quite possible, because on my camera, changing the time is done in hours/minutes/seconds. You would only add two hours, and the minutes would be unaltered.

 

[stormbird]

Thanks Lady O. I will look at that if I can.. You are certainly right the edits had to have happened before the camera was handed in.

If I recall the initial photo provided wasn't the later Spiderman photo but a much earlier one where he was much younger. That has been criticised rightfully here because you'd want the current one especially in suit. But perhaps they gave the other photo from their computer than the camera knowing it was a problem and gave them time for edits..My initial thoughts.

if there are holes in my suggestion I welcome it being tested and discarded.

If it was entirely innocent you'd just hand over the camera right? It is after all the life of a child!!! You wouldn't go on computer to retrieve stored photos and if you did you would sinc first and provide the latest..the behaviour is once again self incriminating. For that matter you just remove and hand over SD card from camera which they didn't do

IMO the black eye photo looked textured, so I think it's likely to have been a copy or photo of a physical photograph (in a frame or album, for example, presumably from FGM's). In case the tweet below can't be seen, here's my screenshot:



- tweet by NSW Police Force @nswpolice at 4:38pm, 12 Sep 2014:

"3yo boy's name is William Tyrell. Missing from #Kendall on the NSW Mid North Coast. Search still underway."

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Did the NSW Crime Commission fully (re)investigate William's case? Or did it just provide the coercive hearings to get evidence for the NSW Police Force?

I'm wondering whether the coroner has the option of sending the case to the NSW Crime Commission's Operations Division (which can investigate serious crimes such as homicide) instead of sending it back to the NSW Police Force Unsolved Homicide Unit.

I was reading about the Queensland Police investigation of Tiahleigh Palmer's death and in that case the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission (which I'm only guessing is similar to the NSW Crime Commission) used coercive hearings to extract evidence from various persons-of-interest (including two men who turned out to have no involvement in the case - one of them was examined for two days). An article in the Courier Mail says:

"Nearly 20 per cent of all coercive hearings [by the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission (CCC)] now relate to murder investigations. [...]

But the CCC can’t bluster into any investigation. There are very strict rules relating to any involvement in a criminal matter. Forcing someone to answer questions, threatening them with jail if they won’t comply, is a massive breach of human rights – as well as basic fundamental legal rights. It is not done lightly. [...]

Of the various categories that can invoke the power of the CCC, one is the “vulnerable victims” category. And that’s what Tiahleigh Palmer came under. As a child, she was considered a vulnerable victim."

"Justice for Tiahleigh Part 2: Investigators cast the net for clues", Courier Mail, 15 Jun 2018 (paywalled)

Whether the Qld CCC investigated Tiahleigh's case or just provided the coercive hearings wasn't made clear.

I've done a cursory look only into the legislation. It seems that the NSW crime commission can get involved when the management committee has made such a recommendation and the crime
Is a 'relevant crime' being one where the potential sentence is beyond 3 years..that seems to be the apparatus by which involvement occurs. The act does have objects for involvement but I suspect that once referral occurs the objects become moot point. Can the ombudsman become involved if the management committee is exceeding its powers pursuant to the acts objects?..Possible I guess but unlikely in practice

 

[Angry Red Bull]

Are think there are shadows but also some reflections on the polished / lacquered wooden floor boards which could cause some confusion. The reflections are in different directions and have colour, like from the pink water bottle.
Also I assume forensics would have looked at photoshopping evidence.

I don't understand your difference between a shadow and a reflection? When I looked closely at the planter legs there was a shadow toward the other planter stand then there was a strong shadow seemingly from the back wall light source coming directly at the photographer. The fact there are two such shadows and different intensity just confirms the two light sources morning sun and an outside downlight imo.

 

[31550]

Do we think the cops may have been responsible for correcting the time when they downloaded the images?

I don't believe anyone 'corrected the time'. IMO that's a misleading question.
Yes the police established the 'corrected time', by examining the camera itself (particularly its internal clock), and the timestamp of the photograph. Noticing that the internal camera clock was approx 2 hours off AEST, they established that the photograph was taken at an actual time approx 2 hours off its 'time taken' timestamp (using precisely the difference between the actual internal camera time and true AEST). Hence 'corrected time'. Police didn't correct or change anything physically. I don't believe anyone did.
When police downloaded or copied images, they would have been copied exactly without anything changing - all the EXIF data would be preserved (except obviously, for e.g. 'time last accessed' if there was such a thing, or anything similar) ... but all the important stiff would be preserved otherwise forensic analysis of copied photographs would be futile.
I hope this makes sense. It seems folks have trouble with this, possibly because they don't understand the concept of 'corrected time' in this instance?