Australia Australia - William Tyrrell, 3, Kendall, NSW, 12 Sept 2014 - #32

[JLZ]

Although blurred out, he was clearly referred to as a POI in the SN episode featuring KT.


Regarding the photo where people believe there absolutely must be another person unaccounted for due to the direction William is looking in, he was roaring! Imagine a child imitating an animal sound, they usually "get into character" & act it out with their whole body, not just their voice boxes! William was probably displaying his ability to "roar" & mimicking the way we see cartoon tigers exaggerate this behaviour.
Also, I am an amateur photographer, taking photos of animals for a hobby, I cant tell you the weird positions you will find yourself in while trying to take a photo, even extending the camera/phone away from your face area to capture a certain moment, IMO if there was anything in that photo sinister, or anything that pointed towards an obvious indiscretion in what was reported that day, they would have used another photo, apparently that was one of three taken that morning & we have all seen the amount of other photos of William, they certainly weren't short of photos!

Regarding the photo--I was thinking of that too. I sometimes play at roaring with children. When you roar, the head moves up and also the eyes as the mouth opens; there's an arching of the back or at least the neck.

 

[Innerchild]

Although blurred out, he was clearly referred to as a POI in the SN episode featuring KT.

Regarding the photo where people believe there absolutely must be another person unaccounted for due to the direction William is looking in, he was roaring! Imagine a child imitating an animal sound, they usually "get into character" & act it out with their whole body, not just their voice boxes! William was probably displaying his ability to "roar" & mimicking the way we see cartoon tigers exaggerate this behaviour.
Also, I am an amateur photographer, taking photos of animals for a hobby, I cant tell you the weird positions you will find yourself in while trying to take a photo, even extending the camera/phone away from your face area to capture a certain moment, IMO if there was anything in that photo sinister, or anything that pointed towards an obvious indiscretion in what was reported that day, they would have used another photo, apparently that was one of three taken that morning & we have all seen the amount of other photos of William, they certainly weren't short of photos!

The foster mother said she crouched down to take the photo, not was standing up and holding the camera down near her feet. I've had a lot to do with taking and analysing photos and high speed film, frame by frame.

Any child not quite 3 and a quarter getting a professional photo for example is distracted by another person, or someone holding something, to make them smile, put on a face or to look at them. Otherwise they look directly at the camera unless they are caught unaware. There is not doubt in my opinion and from my experience that there was another person that William was impressing with his roar, in that photo. I also believe it was taken around 9,15 after reading through richie's analysis.

 

[purpleandgreen]

And who do you think it was?

And why do you want someone else to be there?

And what are you implying?

The foster mother said she crouched down to take the photo, not was standing up and holding the camera down near her feet. I've had a lot to do with taking and analysing photos and high speed film, frame by frame.

Any child not quite 3 and a quarter getting a professional photo for example is distracted by another person, or someone holding something, to make them smile, put on a face or to look at them. Otherwise they look directly at the camera unless they are caught unaware. There is not doubt in my opinion and from my experience that there was another person that William was impressing with his roar, in that photo. I also believe it was taken around 9,15 after reading through richie's analysis.

 

[Hbayne]

The foster mother said she crouched down to take the photo, not was standing up and holding the camera down near her feet. I've had a lot to do with taking and analysing photos and high speed film, frame by frame.

Any child not quite 3 and a quarter getting a professional photo for example is distracted by another person, or someone holding something, to make them smile, put on a face or to look at them. Otherwise they look directly at the camera unless they are caught unaware. There is not doubt in my opinion and from my experience that there was another person that William was impressing with his roar, in that photo. I also believe it was taken around 9,15 after reading through richie's analysis.

If there was another person there based on the direction William is looking then why wouldn’t foster mum have said. This post of yours indicates you think Fm is dishonest in her account of the photo

 

[Violet77]

The foster mother said she crouched down to take the photo, not was standing up and holding the camera down near her feet. I've had a lot to do with taking and analysing photos and high speed film, frame by frame.

Any child not quite 3 and a quarter getting a professional photo for example is distracted by another person, or someone holding something, to make them smile, put on a face or to look at them. Otherwise they look directly at the camera unless they are caught unaware. There is not doubt in my opinion and from my experience that there was another person that William was impressing with his roar, in that photo. I also believe it was taken around 9,15 after reading through richie's analysis.

I never said she was standing up.
The photo is not just a stock standard photo of a child, he is acting out an animal behaviour, why is it so hard to believe that he would not maintain eye contact while pretending to be a tiger?
Also, maybe the FM held something up to get his attention in that direction, where is the little spiderman doll in this shot?

 

[JLZ]

The foster mother said she crouched down to take the photo, not was standing up and holding the camera down near her feet. I've had a lot to do with taking and analysing photos and high speed film, frame by frame.

Any child not quite 3 and a quarter getting a professional photo for example is distracted by another person, or someone holding something, to make them smile, put on a face or to look at them. Otherwise they look directly at the camera unless they are caught unaware. There is not doubt in my opinion and from my experience that there was another person that William was impressing with his roar, in that photo. I also believe it was taken around 9,15 after reading through richie's analysis.

That doesn't seem quite consistent. So if the head of the person taking the photo and the phone were in different places, he would have looked at the phone, but if there was another person there, he would have looked at the other person? In my opinion William was looking in the direction of his mother's face, and the phone was not where the face was.

 

[Violet77]

Regarding the photo--I was thinking of that too. I sometimes play at roaring with children. When you roar, the head moves up and also the eyes as the mouth opens; there's an arching of the back or at least the neck.

Exactly! Imagine a child imitating an elephant, they pull the same pose, minus the trunk arm

 

[sleepinoz]

The foster mother said she crouched down to take the photo, not was standing up and holding the camera down near her feet. I've had a lot to do with taking and analysing photos and high speed film, frame by frame.

Any child not quite 3 and a quarter getting a professional photo for example is distracted by another person, or someone holding something, to make them smile, put on a face or to look at them. Otherwise they look directly at the camera unless they are caught unaware. There is not doubt in my opinion and from my experience that there was another person that William was impressing with his roar, in that photo. I also believe it was taken around 9,15 after reading through richie's analysis.

If you believe that there is something wrong with this photo, that the Police haven't discovered during their analysis of it, you should give Crime Stoppers a call and report your findings if you are serious about finding WIlliam.

 

[sosocurious]

Have you a link for that information? All the comment I've seen is that he was a previous "person of interest".

Spedding,63, has previously been named as a “person of interest” in the Tyrrell case and has denied any involvement. The charges he faces are unrelated to the missing tot.

[url]http://www.news.com.au/national/crim...-1227316450596[/URL]He has very suspicious contacts who have convictions for sexual abuse of young people, but for the time that William was supposed to have disappeared I believe his alibi stands up. He is still suspicious for me, but at 10.30 am I don't think he could be involved in the abduction.

This from April 2015

TRACY BOWDEN: Another person who you have spoken to, you've searched his property, is William Spedding. What can you tell us about the level of interest in him?

MICHAEL WILLING: Look, I don't want to talk about individuals in this case at this point in time. And this is about - today is about William's parents coming forward and making that very heartfelt appeal. So I don't want to touch on individuals and I'll just leave that where it is at the moment.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-...ng-be-at-centre-of-william/6402434#transcript

Jubes has said much the same about BS when asked about his poi status. Yet he eliminated AJ's wife's car the minute he was asked.
If BS were not still a poi - wouldn't the police clear him?

 

[louisepiglet]

I just find it frustrating that the whole picture is not looked at sometimes.

There are real people involved at every level of a child's removal and re-homing. As they say, the highest priorities are dealt with first and foremost. Many, many, many bad situations cannot even be looked at due to lack of resources.

Many of the people who have to deal with these bad situations are parents, too. They know what a child requires for a healthy life. They are not just blindly following rules and regs that have been put in place.

Exactly. These people are just like you and me. They are trying to do their jobs to the best of their ability.

 

[Bohemian]

I am very pleased Lou Lou is here and giving her valuable and personal insight.

<rsbm>

Me too, pt.

 

[Innerchild]

previously been named as a “person of interest” - Doesn't mean he was previously a POI - it means he was named a POI prior to the article being written.

How about this link - top of the list if you google 'Bill Spedding Person of Interest", from 3 months ago.

Bill Spedding is a person of interest in the disappearance of William Tyrrell.

https://www.facebook.com/ACurrentAffair9/videos/1378050182301355/

Sorry I don't have facebook or use social media and I think some may be missing the point here. Frogwell posted the link with police clearly saying Bill Spedding was not a suspect in the disappearance of William.

This was January 23rd 2015, immediately after they'd dug up his Bonny Hills property and questioned staff at the coffee shop and school. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...f-toddler-william-tyrell-20150123-12wpef.html This is a valuable media report even though it is 2015 as it was published only a few days after.

Being named a suspect is far more serious legally that just being named a person of interest (ask Lloyd Rayney).

His alibi's for between 10 am and perhaps 11.00 am were investigated from the coffee shop and school and police said he wasn't a suspect. There were around 700 poi's of which BS was one, otherwise they would not have dug up his property. I'm happy for him to still be a poi. Many others still are although they haven't been named in the media.

But if BS was involved, and he may have been, it wasn't by be being at his fgm's house in Kendell at 10.30 am the day William disappeared. IMO.

 

[Innerchild]

If you believe that there is something wrong with this photo, that the Police haven't discovered during their analysis of it, you should give Crime Stoppers a call and report your findings if you are serious about finding WIlliam.

They don't need me to discover anything about the photo that they don't already know. "Human intervention" was involved.

 

[sleepinoz]

Sorry I don't have facebook or use social media and I think some may be missing the point here. Frogwell posted the link with police clearly saying Bill Spedding was not a suspect in the disappearance of William.

This was January 23rd 2015, immediately after they'd dug up his Bonny Hills property and questioned staff at the coffee shop and school. https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...f-toddler-william-tyrell-20150123-12wpef.html This is a valuable media report even though it is 2015 as it was published only a few days after.

Being named a suspect is far more serious legally that just being named a person of interest (ask Lloyd Rayney).

His alibi's for between 10 am and perhaps 11.00 am were investigated from the coffee shop and school and police said he wasn't a suspect. There were around 700 poi's of which BS was one, otherwise they would not have dug up his property. I'm happy for him to still be a poi. Many others still are although they haven't been named in the media.

But if BS was involved, and he may have been, it wasn't by be being at his fgm's house in Kendell at 10.30 am the day William disappeared. IMO.

He's never been a suspect, he has always been a POI.

His premises were raided on 21st January, 2015 - this report was 2 days later.

His alibi has never been confirmed as holding up.

If you click the link I gave you will still be able to read it, you don't have to have FB, as has been mentioned time and time again.

Nobody is missing the point, except 1 person.

 

[purpleandgreen]

They don't need me to discover anything about the photo that they don't already know. "Human intervention" was involved.

Sorry to be dim, but could you please explain what you mean with links to substantiate? Ta.

And They don't need me to discover anything about the photo that they don't already know.

Just wondering what it is that they know. Again, links would be greatly appreciated, Ta.

 

[sosocurious]

He's never been a suspect, he has always been a POI.

His premises were raided on 21st January, 2015 - this report was 2 days later.

His alibi has never been confirmed as holding up.

If you click the link I gave you will still be able to read it, you don't have to have FB, as has been mentioned time and time again.

Nobody is missing the point, except 1 person.

While this is in talking about a sexual assault, I am assuming it would be the same no matter what the crime or suspected crime.


NSW
When someone is suspected of committing a sexual assault, they may be asked to attend an interview, or may be arrested and taken to a police station. They are then called a "person of interest". The person of interest may then be questioned and, if there is enough evidence, they will be charged..............

After a person has been charged, ............. they are now called the 'accused', ....................

http://www.victimsservices.justice.nsw.gov.au/sexualassault/Pages/sexual_assault_investigation.aspx

 

[Innerchild]

That doesn't seem quite consistent. So if the head of the person taking the photo and the phone were in different places, he would have looked at the phone, but if there was another person there, he would have looked at the other person? In my opinion William was looking in the direction of his mother's face, and the phone was not where the face was.

Exactly! Imagine a child imitating an elephant, they pull the same pose, minus the trunk arm

No he would be looking at the person's face or head. Don't know what you are talking about with the elephant, but in every other photo of William (except in one or two, when he didn't know the photo was being taken) he looks directly into the lens.

Have a look at professional photos being taken of children under 3 and a quarter. When they look away from the camera, it is towards a person distracting them IMO.

 

[purpleandgreen]

No he would be looking at the person's face or head. Don't know what you are talking about with the elephant, but in every other photo of William (except in one or two, when he didn't know the photo was being taken) he looks directly into the lens.

Have a look at professional photos being taken of children under 3 and a quarter. When they look away from the camera, it is towards a person distracting them IMO.

But he wasn't roaring and pretending to be an animal in them, none that I've seen anyway. IMO

 

[Violet77]

No he would be looking at the person's face or head. Don't know what you are talking about with the elephant, but in every other photo of William (except in one or two, when he didn't know the photo was being taken) he looks directly into the lens.

Have a look at professional photos being taken of children under 3 and a quarter. When they look away from the camera, it is towards a person distracting them IMO.

What if the FM was distracting him, with a his Spiderman doll, or just her hand? Does that not fall under what you have stated to be the normal behaviour of ALL children that age (because apparently every child acts the same way)
IMO he has just lifted his head & is in mid roar, just like FM states.

 

[JLZ]

No he would be looking at the person's face or head. Don't know what you are talking about with the elephant, but in every other photo of William (except in one or two, when he didn't know the photo was being taken) he looks directly into the lens.

Have a look at professional photos being taken of children under 3 and a quarter. When they look away from the camera, it is towards a person distracting them IMO.

A professional photograph with a camera instead of a phone is a different situation. The head of the person taking the photo is behind the camera.