Just wanted to note a couple of things:
1. It was said (reported by another newspaper) that the info regarding the timestamp being tested was an 'exclusive' to
The Australian; so it would seem that any reports from other newspapers were piggybacking on
The Australian's info:
"The image has a 'created time' of 7.39am and a 'corrected time' of 9.37am, a new document from the 2000-page evidence brief obtained by The Australian shows."
Why the last photo of William Tyrrell in his Spiderman suit could hold the key to solving mystery | Daily Mail Online
"A report obtained by the Australian shows a created time for the image at 7.39am, but then a corrected time of 9.37am."
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/last-known-photo-of-william-tyrrell-to-be-forensically-examined/ar-AAGEScJ?li=AAgfIYZ&ocid=mailsignout
"The Australian has reported that there is confusion over the digital time stamp of the photo after a new document in the 2000-page evidence brief listed a "created time" for the image of 7:39 am, and a "corrected time" of 9:37am."
Doubts raised over critical last photo of William Tyrrell
"In an exclusive story, The Australian revealed that the currently halted inquest will now conduct an urgent forensic examination of the photograph."
Mystery over last photo of William Tyrrell
2. According to The Australian's article, posted by SouthAussie above, it said,
"In the extract, from August 28,.." - does this mean that this talk surrounding the photo timestamp was not 'heard' by those in attendance at court that day, but was heard during the recorded transcript of the court session for that day? I know that news organizations have the ability (and the funds) to pay for the recorded transcripts of court sessions here,.. is it perhaps the same there? That may explain why this wasn't heard by any of the attendees at the time?? ie maybe not loud enough to have heard it until heard on the recording??
3. According to same article posted by SouthAussie above, it said Swift's application (whatever her application *was*) was
not dealt with that day:
“I’ve just been reminded there was going to be an application by Ms (Michelle) Swift (who represents William’s biological father) today. We’re not going to deal with that today because we need to obtain some further evidence which will relate to that application.”
The coroner, Harriet Grahame, replied: “Yes, I think it’s important that that’s dealt with in detail, and we do need that further statement. It’s important.”
Ms Swift then said: “Certainly … and if I can park that application until later.”
Ms Grahame interjected: “I’m aware of what the application is. I think it’s important we’re pursuing it, and we’ll come back to it.”
Mr Craddock then said: “We’re going to be obtaining some expert evidence that’s going to deal with that issue, amongst other things.”"
To me, it sounds like whatever Swift's application *was*, it was not known to anyone other than Swift, the Coroner, and her assistant; and that this application has been left for the next tranche? imo.
4. It seems that these photographs from that morning *had* been previously forensically examined, perhaps by police using a specialized software. Anyone's guess is as good as mine as to why the times are now in question. My guess however, is that perhaps nobody *had* changed the times on them, and instead, the corrected times were calculated BY the police after utilizing the forensic software (or another specialized company who uses this software perhaps, except it may have mentioned the name of the firm if that were the case?) - however, perhaps they failed to also note why or how they came up with the corrected times, or the reasoning for why the two times are different in each photo, and therefore police were not able to answer to that, hence the Coroner's request for an independent forensic review of them?
"The report by X-Ways forensic software reads: “Created 12/09/2014 07:39:54 Corrected time: 12/09/2014 09:37:44”."
Mystery over last photo of William Tyrrell
X-Ways Forensics: Integrated Computer Forensics Software
5. Articles suggest it was a 'newly revealed document' obtained by The Australian from the 'brief of evidence'. If
The Australian obtained the document illegally and/or published against orders, this document from the bios or their associates (or anyone else for that matter) as some here seem to be suggesting, I doubt if
The Australian would be announcing it (or publishing it, for that matter)?
But a newly revealed document from the inquest’s brief of evidence, obtained by The Australian, says the jpeg photograph was “created” at 7.30am and “corrected” at 9.37am.
the time stamp on the picture was now under urgent forensic examination
Another article seems to have published the document showing the photos and their timestamps (presumably 'the newly revealed document' obtained by
The Australian) (Can't say if these photos were published same day as the article, or if edited to add them later on, when other news agencies published them?):
"The photographs, tendered as exhibits to the inquest into his disappearance....
.....
The five photographs, ... were shot over two minutes and 39 seconds.
But the first three, in which William is photographed from more of a distance, were taken within a 23-second period, allegedly by William’s foster mother.
For the next two photographs, the foster mother appears to have been crouching down in front of William,....
Fifteen seconds later, he is roaring into the camera."
Never-before-seen pics from day William vanished
'The Australian has reported that there is confusion over the digital time stamp of the photo after a new document in the 2000-page evidence brief listed a "created time" for the image of 7:39 am, and a "corrected time" of 9:37am."
Doubts raised over critical last photo of William Tyrrell
In the end, I'm wondering if
The Australian listened to a recorded transcript of the Aug 28th session of the Inquest, heard those parts, asked about them, were told of the discrepancies on the photos document, and asked the Coroner for a copy? That may explain why it took a few more days (3?) to publish the article?
