Babygate Analysis/Conclusions: A Non-Larry Perspective
(Image Credit: Hollywood Life)
Iām prefacing this post with a few disclaimers:
After some consideration, I chose to write this without factoring in Larry whatsoever. No Larry-related points, proof, or speculation in any way. This is solely analyzing babygate from an unbiased perspective.Ā
I donāt claim to know the entire truth. It is impossible for any of us to know. Ā What I conclude is based on direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, research, and analysis.
I am willing to discuss opposing views. Iām happy to talk about the topic in a civil, kind, and mature matter. I will dismiss any discourse that is aggressive, immature, and so on.
I did not include every single opinion/conclusion/piece of evidence I found. I condensed my thoughts as much as possible (and this is still a novel-length post). There are so many more points I can think of. However, babygate masterposts cover all of that; Iāll link to some of those at the end.
The conclusion points arenāt in a very specific order. I aimed to list related points one after another. Aside from that, itās not in order of āhardest to weakestā evidence.
Please readĀ āAuthorās Notesā for additional clarity/input. They interject thoughts/etc. that I feel are necessary to include.Ā
Lastly, I included links to every source I cited in this post. However, I did not tag the Tumblr users. Iām not sure if they are comfortable with having Babygate questions/comments directed to their blogs. If you are a linked source and want to be tagged, please let me know!Ā
My Initial Reaction To Babygate
In February of 2020, I received several messages on LateToLarry requesting that I analyze something calledĀ ābabygateā. I had no idea what babygate meant at the time.Ā
I learned what it meant, and prior to any research I felt the theory was so absurd.Ā I also felt uncomfortable analyzing it because I believed Iād feel bias as a single mom. The idea of discussing a random child in depth initially bothered me, too. I declined to analyze it last year.
However, I did a LOT of research over time. My opinion has changed significantly. Below, Iāve shared my main conclusions and analysis about babygate.Ā Thank you for reading and I hope you enjoy my post!Ā
1.Ā No Paternity Test Was Performed Prior To The Pregnancy Announcement
Louis was/is a prominent celebrity and has a current net worth of $70 million. From legal, financial, and practical standpoints, it makes no sense for him to choose not to get a test.Ā
Itās unheard of in Hollywood and the entertainment industry. Any sensible team -lawyers, PR reps, managers, advisors, etc. - would not just go along with it. They are employed to protect his career and image.Ā
A. āBriana/Louis didnāt want to risk miscarriage with prenatal testing.ā
Non-invasive testing is completely safe for fetuses and pregnant women, so thereās no medical reason for the lack of testing.
B.Ā āLouis chose not to get the test done because he wanted to be a father and was invested in the pregnancy/parenting.ā
Time has shown that this is not true. Louis does not have custody; there was a brief custody case in 2016 that led nowhere. He does not have a consistent or prominent role in the childās life.
There is no logical reason for the lack of paternity testing prior to the announcement unless Louis knew he was not the father and all parties knew this to be true.
2. There Was No Confirmation Of A Paternity Test After The Birth
Iāll keep this section fairly short. A quick Google search returns dozens of conflicting reports.Ā Many of them state that Louis demanded a paternity test shortly after birth. Other reports state that he has never pursued a paternity test.Ā
āLouis Tomlinson not interested in paternity testā - Business Standard
āEXCLUSIVE: Louis Tomlinson Demanded a DNA Test āAs Soon as the Baby Was Bornāā - InTouch Weekly
āLouis Tomlinson: No DNA Test Needed ā¦ Positive Freddieās His Sonā -TMZ
āLouis Tomlinson & Briana Jungwirth: WhyHe Had DNA Test Done on His Newborn Sonā - Hollywood Life
This Twitter thread discusses TMZ reports that - as of 2020 - no DNA test was done.
There is no reliable confirmation that Louis pursued a paternity test. The media cannot come to a general/factual consensus.
Again, there is no reasonable explanation for the lack of paternity testing unless Louis knows he is not the father of the child.Ā
3. The Conception-To-Birth Timeline Is Inconsistent/Unreliable
Pregnancy and conception as a whole can be rather confusing; timelines from conception to birth are unique to each person. Having said that, Brianaās timeline is full of glaring inconsistencies that donāt add up.Ā
Iāll begin with this timeline based on bulletprooflarryās post and my own research. Dates Iāve added myself include linked sources:
May 5th, 2015 - Louis and Briana were first seen together in public.
May 6th to May 31st, 2015 - Briana and her mom followedĀ baby-related social medial accounts.
May 12th, 2015 - Louis and Briana were pictured together in public.
July 3rd, 2015 - Louis is seen with Brianaās brother in Hollywood.
July 14th, 2015 - The first pregnancy report is published.
August 4th, 2015 - Louis confirms pregnancy on GMA.
January 21st, 2016 - The child is reportedly born.
Based on the dates above, these are the possible dates/milestones for her pregnancy:
Scenario A - If conception occurred on May 5th, Briana was 37 weeks and 2 days pregnant on January 21st, 2016. This is considered an early-term birth and about 26% of birthsĀ occur at 37 weeks.
Scenario B -Ā If conception occurred on May 12th, Briana was 36 weeks and 2 days pregnant on January 21st. This is considered a late-term or late premature birthĀ and about 10% of birthsĀ occur at 36 weeks.
These dates matter because Brianaās alleged hospital stay was not consistent with a premature or early-term birth. She was pictured in public - healthy and holding a baby carrier - within one week of giving birth.Ā
(Image Credit: Daily Mail)
(Image Credit: larrysbbrbb28)
If she gave birth based on the dates above, itās extremely unlikely that she or the baby would be out in public so soon.
Below are screenshots of an additional timeline from an archived Tumblr post. It provides excellent points about more timeline inconsistencies:Ā
The main inconsistencies and red flags are bolded in the post. It supports the unreliable conception timeline, and it also mentions my next point - the official pregnancy announcement.Ā
The post above mentions that the Jungwirth family followed baby-related accounts before Briana could possibly know she was pregnant. Hereās one screenshot from skepticallarrie proving it:
Iāve also seen several posts that show inconsistencies with the size of Brianaās baby bump. Unfortunately, the most reliable post no longer exists. You can view a web archive of Brianaās pregnancy photos, but most of the image links are broke.Ā
The only post I have saved is a web archive of a long babygate post. The beginning of the post contains photos showing discrepancies in the size of Brianaās baby bump.Ā
āPregnancy looks different on everybody, everyone recovers differently, etc.ā
Yes, this is true and a valid point! As a woman who has gone through multiple pregnancies and two live births, I truly understand this argument.Ā
However, the sheer amount of inconsistencies are what make this a red flag. There are too many unreliable and contradicting points to brush this off. It goes beyond the point ofĀ āwell, each person has a different experienceā.
There are a few conclusions/scenarios I believe you can draw from the information above:
Briana was pregnant prior to meeting Louis.
Briana was never pregnant in the first place.Ā
Both are valid to consider, but I personally believe she was never pregnant.Ā
(Authorās note: My calculation for dates are based on the date of alleged conception. Most due date calculators, by default, use the date of a womanās last mentrual period - LMP - to provide estimations.
I also used Date Duration CalendarĀ for my calculations. Accessible due date calculators only allowed me to input dates from 2019/2020. Depending on the tools and dates you use, your mileage may vary.)
4. The Announcement Itself Was Highly Unusual
This point ties into the first and third points. I donāt consider it a major piece of evidence, but itās noteworthy due to the other points.Ā
So, there are a few reasons why the Good Morning America announcement stands out.Ā
A. If Briana got pregnant on May 5th, then she was approximately 10 weeks pregnant when the first pregnancy report was published. This also means she was approximately 13 weeks pregnant at the time of the GMA announcement.
If Briana got pregnant on May 12th, she was approximately nine weeks pregnant at the time of the first report and approximately 12 weeks pregnant at the time of the GMA announcement.
B. The public announcement on Good Morning America raises a lot of questions. Iāve had multiple issues embedding the video; the bolded link takes you to the GMA announcement on YouTube.Ā
Anyways, these questions/thoughts - disregarding any Larry theories -Ā come to mind when watching the video:Ā
This is a segment for promoting/discussing their album/music.
The baby announcement is the sole non-album/music related topic that is mentioned during the segment.
The announcement is not organically worked into the segment as a natural talking point.
Louisā reactions - such as bringing the microphone to his lips and not talking - is very unlike his standard interview demeanor.
The male interviewer and the band members have noticeable facial expressions and body language that suggest discomfort, stress, or awkwardness.Ā
A post by skepticalarrie draws similar conclusions. Her post is much more detailed than mine, and I highly recommend reading/viewing it.Ā
(Authorās Note: Iāve touched upon this on LateToLarry and will make a post here eventually, but body language and facial expressions are valid. Theyāre valid to the point that they are used in court cases.)Ā
My conclusions here are twofold. One is that:Ā
Announcing a pregnancy - especially a celebrity-related pregnancy - this early is extremely uncommon and unlikely.
The announcement itself seems out of place and very forced.Ā
This particular point, to me, is not extremely strong evidence. I still think itās worth keeping in mind and is relevant to other points here. So, Iāve included it either way.
5.Ā Briana Posted Stolen Pregnancy/Baby Photos On Social Media
(EDIT: I wrote this piece before the recent release of Brianaās alleged ultrasound and donāt have time to add it. Itās pretty strong proof and can easily be found in recent babygate posts.)
Babygate posts often point out that Briana and the Jungwirth family used stolen/fake pregnancy and baby photos on social media.Ā Itās a well-known topic thatās often discussed.Ā
Iām condensing this section to a few examples. I encourage additional research if youād like to see more.Ā
A. This Tumblr post showsĀ stolen baby bump photosĀ that Brianaās cousin Ashley posted on Twitter:Ā
B. This Tumblr postĀ and Twitter postĀ show a stolen baby photo that Briana posted on Instagram:
(Authorās Note: Since I was not active in the fandom at the time, I am relying on information from other blogs and social media posts. I vetted my sources pretty well, but any false information is my own mistake.)
The only word that sums this up isĀ āsuspiciousā. Using stolen photos of a pregnant woman/baby is not necessary if you are legitimately pregnant. Thatās really what it boils down to. It lends to the conclusion that Briana was never pregnant.Ā
6. Photos And Videos Of The Child Are Heavily Altered And Manipulated
It is indisputable that many photos and videos of the child are heavily manipulated to alter his appearance. This goes beyond filters, lighting, and angles.Ā
Several detailed posts show the manipulations; here are some examples:
A web archive of all Photoshop evidence from tellmethisisnotlove
An in-depth post from genuineconspiracy that includes detailed photo evidence.
A video post from freefreddiereign that shows Photoshop evidence based on photos the child.Ā
There is no doubt that his facial features are frequently altered. This is easy to conclude using any free software that detects Photoshop. As a photographer myself, I can easily spot the manipulations.
(Authorās Note: I know that directly discussing the child is controversial. When I first heard of babygate, my initial reaction was discomfort about analyzing a child.
I quickly learned/concluded that his family members are responsible for heavily putting him in the public eye. All content Iāve used for research is based on the familyās posts.
Still, I have personally chosen not post pictures of the child, but the links I am sharing contain photos/videos of him.
Additionally, I used FotoForensics on photos of myself prior to writing this. It was important to me to feel absolutely certain about this point. Iām fine with sharing my own FotoForensics images if anyone is curious.)
A.Ā āFreddie looks like Louis in pictures that arenāt Photoshopped.ā
Parentage cannot be based on whether or not a child looks like his mother/father. I understand the viewpoint, but itās simply not evidence. Additionally, thinking the child looks like Louis is a matter of opinion.Ā
Thereās also the fact that appearance means nothing overall. Science backs up this statement very well. Examples and references:
āHow can children from the same parents look so different?ā by HowStuffWorks
āMy Baby Looks Nothing Like Me: A Genetic Explanationā by FamilyEducation
Additionally, here is a personal anecdote. I have two sons close to Freddieās age. One of them looks exactly like his father and nothing like me. The other looks exactly like me and nothing like his father. Despite how they look, they are both of themĀ are our biological children.Ā
There is no reasonable explanation for altering the childās appearance - particularly to make him look more similar to Louis.Ā
I cannot think of a single argument as to why the Jungwirth family would do this unless they need/want the child to look a specific way.Ā
7. Johannah Deakinās Official Obituary Does Not Mention The Child
When looking into babygate, I read the argument that the child is legitimately Louisā son because he is listed as her grandchild in Internet-based obituaries and announcements.Ā
I also read the counter-argument that Louisā motherās official newspaper/print obituary does not mention the child.Ā I recall seeing proof, but I did not save it at the time. I did some research and this appears to be true.Ā
The Doncaster Free Press is a local weekly newspaper in Doncaster, and it published an article about the funeral. The article is NOT an obituary itself, but it does list her obituary details. The publication does not list the child among the surviving family members.Ā
If a mistake is made regarding these details, itās typical for newspapers to post a correction addressing a misprint. Upon further research, the Doncaster Free Press did not issue a correction at any time.Ā
(Authorās Note:Ā I lost my own mother and am personally familiar with how local obituaries are written. Immediate family members - i.e. spouses and adult children - provide information regarding surviving family members.)Ā
The conclusion here is straightforward. Louis and his family chose not to include the child in his motherās official obituary. This strongly suggests that he is not legitimately related to Louis.Ā
My Opinion-Based Conclusions
Update: After some consideration, I am saving my opinion-based conclusions for a separate post. I originally intended to include them here; transparency is important to me.
Unfortunately, the section became rather long and took away from the main post points. So, Iāll be working on a post thatās just my opinion-based conclusions. In the meantime, feel free to message me with any questions.Ā
If youāve made it this far, thank you for taking the time to read my post! I appreciate the interest expressed for it, and I hope it lives up to expectations.Ā
Again, I want to reiterate this is:
Not an all-inclusive post; I narrowed down my findings to seven points.
Not a masterpost on babygate.
Purposely omitting any potential Larry-related points to remove bias.Ā
Iāve reread this quite a few times, and itās as error-free as possible. If you spot any mistakes/errors, Iām completely open to making corrections. Just kindly let me know.Ā
This list contains references/research about babygate that I consider the most reliable. It includes Larry and non-Larry related Babygate content.
Tumblr posts tagged with babygate by Tumblr useĀ genuineconspiracy.
A web archive of babygate posts by Tumblr user tellmethisisnotlove (her account was deactivated by staff).
Tumblr posts tagged with babygate by darkrainbowlouis.
Tumblr posts tagged with babygate byĀ skepticalarrie.
Lastly, if thereās interest in an opinion-related post or Larry-related post, Iāll consider writing them. Feel free to let me know as you all did with this post.Ā
Amy (obviouslygenuinely/latetolarry)
romaincrisis
jbbartram-illu
titsay
blakekathryn
2087
areudirty
turnnoffyourmind
dailybridgerton
jacobvanloon
