Re: Textusa releases new statement (6 Nov 2015) on 'The Last Photo' - says it is a photoshopped composite of THREE different photographs, two of which were taken on Friday 18 May 2007

by Verdi 10.11.15 22:53

@TonyBennett wrote: But as I correctly pointed out, when it's 2.29pm in Portugal and 2.29pm in Britain, that means it is 1.29pm Greenwich Mean Time.

You beat me to it, I was just about to comment that you specifically stated Greenwich Mean Time NOT GMT + 1, as in British Summer Time.

Was not that Kate McCann's explanation for the time discrepancy for last photograph when she claimed it was taken at 2:29 pm as opposed to 1:29pm as shown by the camera data - because she forgot to change the camera time?

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.15 23:11

whatsupdoc wrote:Tony, wasn't it Matthew who said slaves should be loyal and work hard for their master? Although there are still slaves in the World, it is out of touch with modern day acceptance and values. I don't think making all these religious quotations and hiding behind a religious veil helps the discussions along.

To address your point, I will have to reproduce a few more verses. The passage you are thinking of is actually from the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians, and here are the verses, from the trusted King James Version which is generally accepted as the most faithful translation in the English language of the original Scriptures. You'll see that the correct translation is 'servant', not 'slave', and take a look at Paul's admonition to the 'masters' in red bold:

EPHESIANS CHAPTER 6

1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right.
2 Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise;
3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.
4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;
6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;
7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:
8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.
9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

The reason of course why I quoted the long speech of Christ against the vanity and hypocrisy of the Pharisees was because bobbin made a direct accusation of 'unchristian' conduct against me. The quotation showed that Christ was a man of plain speaking when the situation demanded it. He didn't mince his words as so many do today

by Verdi 10.11.15 23:31

Good grief - give me strength! So where are we now..

Bodies being added and bodies being removed
Interfering with nature by moving shadows about to prove a theory
Changing structure and composition of wall
Blossoming the shrubbery at the same time as removing bracts from bourgainvillia
Changing seasons
Changing the weather
Bouncing pool tiles
Gerry McCann should be lying down because the reflection in his sunglasses is vertical and not horizontal
Somebody's lost an arm
Somebody's lost a leg
Shadows formed by body parts not in sync with nature
Dancing scenery
Subjects not looking at photographer
Where is photographer
Why is Madeleine laughing whilst Amelie looks glum and GM downright miserable
Where's Kate

So on and so on and so on, all seemingly attempting to evidence a fake photograph but for what reason.

What does any of this prove - why go to all this bother to fake an image of MBM (or whoever else needs to be placed at the Ocena Club at a specific time) when all that's necessary is to use an existing photograph and change the date and time it was taken? Besides, there is far more important stuff to scrutinize and analyze rather than worrying about a mis-placed tile or a moulting deciduous shrub.

Again - why did this photograph not materialize until GM's return from the UK during the fourth week of May 2007. If it was as claimed, the last photograph, why wasn't it immediately handed to the PJ to assist with the search for their missing child as opposed to a photograph of a much younger child?

by whatsupdoc 10.11.15 23:56

Quote Verdi...

Again - why did this photograph not materialize until GM's return from the UK during the fourth week of May 2007. If it was as claimed, the last photograph, why wasn't it immediately handed to the PJ to assist with the search for their missing child as opposed to a photograph of a much younger child?

Nail on head, Verdi. The photo should have been in the parent's camera and removed straight away by the PJ but it doesn't appear to have been in their camera. So lots of time for a photo to be cobbled together to indicate Madeleine was alive on the Thursday.

by whatsupdoc 11.11.15 0:12

Thanks for replying , Tony. I did see Bobbin's post so you have a right of reply to that.
Number 5 sounded somewhat ominous.

I'm off to bed, night all.

by Guest 11.11.15 7:48

Their were two cameras that's why the didn't have this picture. All the nonsense in this thread about shadows elbows and sunglasses has been soundly dealt with on this forum over the last few years. In great depth I might add.

by Mark Willis 11.11.15 8:11

BlueBag wrote:Their were two cameras that's why the didn't have this picture. All the nonsense in this thread about shadows elbows and sunglasses has been soundly dealt with on this forum over the last few years. In great depth I might add.

It was, ages ago on 3As.
We had the honour of inspecting a first generation copy of that pic which as I said before, was huge, the original size, unadulterated.
It showed no evidence whatsoever of tampering, be that errant black stripes, Gerald's "hovering leg", prehensile elbows, two suns, anteaters, black eyes, peripatetic pools, Lord Lucan or the same black cat passing across a doorway...
Please, forget the specious photoshopping posit, it is all a matter of when the photo was taken, not what appears in it.
We now go over to David Icke and his ex-employee list...

by Verdi 11.11.15 15:35

whatsupdoc wrote:Quote Verdi...

Again - why did this photograph not materialize until GM's return from the UK during the fourth week of May 2007. If it was as claimed, the last photograph, why wasn't it immediately handed to the PJ to assist with the search for their missing child as opposed to a photograph of a much younger child?

Nail on head, Verdi. The photo should have been in the parent's camera and removed straight away by the PJ but it doesn't appear to have been in their camera. So lots of time for a photo to be cobbled together to indicate Madeleine was alive on the Thursday.

I think you'll find there was more than one camera on that holiday at the Ocean Club - one that curiously disappeared, at least as far as the investigation was conerned. Wonder what other images were stored in that memory?

ETA: Just noticed [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has already replied!

by joyce1938 11.11.15 16:57

This strikes a chord at back of my head, does anyone recall that one of the cameras didn't go straight to where it should have, and went to someone else first, was a few questions about that at time, never got answered? - joyce1938

by **Tony Bennett** 11.11.15 17:12

joyce1938 wrote:This strikes a chord at back of my head, does anyone recall that one of the cameras didn't go straight to where it should have, and went to someone else first, was a few questions about that at time, never got answered? - joyce1938

@ joyce1938

There are many many mysteries about the cameras used on that holiday and what happened to the many photographs on them.

I think the incident you are thinking of is how an Olympus camera, almost certainly belonging to the Paynes, plus two SD memory cards, ended up at the home of Hampshire police officer Detective Constable Martin on the evening of Tuesday 8 May, less than 5 days from Madeleine's disappearance.

These items, plus some video footage taken in Praia da Luz, were examined at the Hampshire Police Hi-Tech Crime Unit at Notley the following day.

As far as we know the PJ never knew about this and again IIRC Goncalo Amaral doesn't mention this in his book.

I think it is probable that a very senior British police or security services officer from MI5 or Special Branch jetted from Portugal to England earlier that day carrying the camera, the memory cards and the video film with him.

On the very day that D.C. Martin was examining the Olympus and the SD cards in Hampshire (9 May), Gerry McCann and Michael Wright had an appointment with the PJ in Portimao. They handed in two CD's of pdf. photo images, which had been carefully edited over the preceding few days by Gerry McCann, Michael Wright and the Head of Risk and Public Relations at one of the world's largest and most successful PR companies, Bell Pottinger.

The three of them had deleted and cropped many images before putting them on the CDs.

by j.rob 11.11.15 17:39

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A very weird photo. Body shapes and angles strange with Amelie's right arm missing. All three entirely disengaged with each other. Only Gerry is engaging with the photographer. The pool was freezing by Kate's admission so I doubt that all three would be so relaxed (ETA: Gerry is far from relaxed - he looks stressed and anxious but the two children look relaxed) with lower legs hanging in very cold water. Something does not ring true about the point where Amelie's right leg meets Gerry's left leg. There is a bend in Amelie's left arm which suggests her hand is pressing on the ground, as Madeleine appears to be, but the podgy part of her wrist is too high up off the ground for this to be happening.

Utterly unconvincing photo, imo, designed to make it appear as if all three were happily playing by the pool on Thursday lunchtime when they weren't.

Even if the ONLY thing that is 'wrong' with the photo is that there was deception about when it was taken, and it was taken on Saturday rather than Thursday, that still means that the photo is deceptive. As it purports to show something happening on Thursday, when in fact it was happening on Saturday.

So why the need for this (major) deception?

by Guest 11.11.15 18:00

Seriously j.rob "missing arm"?

Use the search.

Sick of this crap but not surprised at you chipping in.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.11.15 18:11

j.rob wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A very weird photo. Body shapes and angles strange with Amelie's right arm missing. All three entirely disengaged with each other. Only Gerry is engaging with the photographer.

I am lost for words.

A photograph is not genuine because two out of three people on it are 'not engaging with the photographer'??

Please, please spare us from any more of this utter rubbish.

by Amy Dean 11.11.15 18:24

A bit of Amelie's right arm can be seen; no mystery about that.

by biker_don 11.11.15 18:29

Amy Dean wrote:A bit of Amelie's right arm can be seen; no mystery about that.

I also think Madeleine is engaging with, and smiling at, the photographer.

by TheTruthWillOut 11.11.15 18:48

Tony Bennett wrote:I think the incident you are thinking of is how an Olympus camera, almost certainly belonging to the Paynes, plus two SD memory cards, ended up at the home of Hampshire police officer Detective Constable Martin on the evening of Tuesday 8 May, less than 5 days from Madeleine's disappearance.

Haven't we been through who owned the Olympus camera before? It is the Foster families camera and Hampshire Police picked it up from their home address. I don't see what is odd about the police following up on a report from the Foster family that they have pictures and footage from the Ocean Club. That a police officer took the collected camera and video to the examiners home address may be odd (if you can back that up) but could just have been that they wanted to check things out ASAP.

See here: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FOSTER.htm and here: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VIDEO_MEMORY.htm
On the second link note that all items examined have a reference beginning "NALF" these are the initials of Mr Foster.

So unless you have other evidence that the camera is the Paynes then it belongs to the Fosters as far as I see it, Tony.

Edited to fix second link.

by Guest 11.11.15 18:56

Amy Dean wrote:A bit of Amelie's right arm can be seen; no mystery about that.

No mystery at all.

The mystery is why people keep regurgitating this nonsense.

They'll be going on about the black line between Amelies left arm and body next.

by Verdi 11.11.15 20:27

j.rob wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A very weird photo. Body shapes and angles strange with Amelie's right arm missing. All three entirely disengaged with each other. Only Gerry is engaging with the photographer. The pool was freezing by Kate's admission so I doubt that all three would be so relaxed (ETA: Gerry is far from relaxed - he looks stressed and anxious but the two children look relaxed) with lower legs hanging in very cold water. Something does not ring true about the point where Amelie's right leg meets Gerry's left leg. There is a bend in Amelie's left arm which suggests her hand is pressing on the ground, as Madeleine appears to be, but the podgy part of her wrist is too high up off the ground for this to be happening.

Utterly unconvincing photo, imo, designed to make it appear as if all three were happily playing by the pool on Thursday lunchtime when they weren't.

Even if the ONLY thing that is 'wrong' with the photo is that there was deception about when it was taken, and it was taken on Saturday rather than Thursday, that still means that the photo is deceptive. As it purports to show something happening on Thursday, when in fact it was happening on Saturday.

So why the need for this (major) deception?

You cannot be serious!

by joyce1938 11.11.15 21:31

Yes, Mr. Bennett, that is exactly what I recall about this camera and how it went to a police officer's home first. It was spoken about, can't recall what the outcome of that was or if we got to know anything else why it went there at all. You will possibly know how to recapture it ,I am not hot on that side of things, just small details suddenly crop up at back of head . joyce1938

by bobbin 11.11.15 21:40

joyce1938 wrote:Yes, Mr. Bennett, that is exactly what I recall about this camera and how it went to a police officer's home first. It was spoken about, can't recall what the outcome of that was or if we got to know anything else why it went there at all. You will possibly know how to recapture it ,I am not hot on that side of things, just small details suddenly crop up at back of head . joyce1938

joyce1938, here is a repeat of post from several posts back, from TheTruthWillOut. Worth opening the mccannpjfiles quoted. It explains fully.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
quote " [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 7:48 pm

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:I think the incident you are thinking of is how an Olympus camera, almost certainly belonging to the Paynes, plus two SD memory cards, ended up at the home of Hampshire police officer Detective Constable Martin on the evening of Tuesday 8 May, less than 5 days from Madeleine's disappearance.

Haven't we been through who owned the Olympus camera before? It is the Foster families camera and Hampshire Police picked it up from their home address. I don't see what is odd about the police following up on a report from the Foster family that they have pictures and footage from the Ocean Club. That a police officer took the collected camera and video to the examiners home address may be odd (if you can back that up) but could just have been that they wanted to check things out ASAP.

See here: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FOSTER.htm and here: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VIDEO_MEMORY.htm
On the second link note that all items examined have a reference beginning "NALF" these are the initials of Mr Foster.

So unless you have other evidence that the camera is the Paynes then it belongs to the Fosters as far as I see it, Tony." end quote

by Guest 11.11.15 21:51

PeterMac has the info on cameras and memory cards.

The PJ sadly didn't get everything.

by Verdi 11.11.15 22:19

BlueBag wrote:PeterMac has the info on cameras and memory cards.

The PJ sadly didn't get everything.

Has said information been discussed on this forum, or is it classified information exclusive to PeterMac? I've had a quick search but can't find anything. This is a subject of particular interest to me because I've always argued that Hampshire police had more photographic footage and equipment than that of the Fosters. It would be good to read what PeterMac knows, or failing that what others think on the subject.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.11.15 22:34

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:I think the incident you are thinking of is how an Olympus camera, almost certainly belonging to the Paynes, plus two SD memory cards, ended up at the home of Hampshire police officer Detective Constable Martin on the evening of Tuesday 8 May, less than 5 days from Madeleine's disappearance.

Haven't we been through who owned the Olympus camera before? It is the Foster families camera and Hampshire Police picked it up from their home address. I don't see what is odd about the police following up on a report from the Foster family that they have pictures and footage from the Ocean Club. That a police officer took the collected camera and video to the examiners home address may be odd (if you can back that up) but could just have been that they wanted to check things out ASAP.

See here: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FOSTER.htm and here: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VIDEO_MEMORY.htm
On the second link note that all items examined have a reference beginning "NALF" these are the initials of Mr Foster.

So unless you have other evidence that the camera is the Paynes then it belongs to the Fosters as far as I see it, Tony.
Edited to fix second link.

@ TheTruthWillOut
@ joyce1938
@ bobbin

Thank you for the information and the links @ TheTruthWillOut.

I have to confess that, as PeterMac once wrote in connection with sorting out the cameras and the photographs in this case, 'My brain hurts'.

In my case the confusion has been compounded because when I last looked at the only thread on here with 'Olympus Camera' in the title, it took me to posts by 'Nereid' saying that the Olympus was the Paynes' camera whilst another poster said it was probably the Oldfields'.

The links you have provided are persuasive evidence that not only the video but also the camera and the two SD memory cards were all from Nigel Foster. Yes, the exhibits are all labelled 'NALH' = Nigel Foster.

In that case I withdraw all I said earlier about its mysterious arrival at D.C. Martin's house on the evening of 8 December.

I also agree that on the face of it, there is nothing obviously wrong about this apparent sequence of events:

1. Nigel Foster takes pictures of things in Praia da Luz on a still Olympus camera and another video camcorder
2. He comes back to England and contacts Leicestershire Police saying: "I've got some pictures from Praia da Luz, do you want to look at them?"
3. Leicestershire Police ask D.C. Martin or someone at Hampshire Police to examine these items (SD cards and a video film) - not quite sure why Hampshire is chosen though
4. They are delivered to D.C. Martin (if that is correct) late on 8 May
5. D.C. Martin examines them at the High Tech Unit at Netley, Hampshire on 9 May and writes a repot on his findings the same day.

All the same, I cannot avoid a niggling doubt as to whether this is the plain, unvarnished truth and nothing but the truth about these SD cards and the video.

Further, I am not sure if the PJ knew that this was happening over in Hampshire.

by cbeagle 11.11.15 22:49

Tony Bennett wrote:

We know that the camera used for this photo was the Canon camera used by Kate McCann on that holiday.

Do we?

Isn't it we just know the EXIF data said it was a Canon which can be faked (as you are arguing).

Since it took so long to appear, there's no real guarantee about which camera took it, unless of course the Police/PJ downloaded it from Kate's camera in the days immediately after the 3rd.

by TheTruthWillOut 11.11.15 23:05

Thanks for the reply, Tony. Glad it is finally cleared up! FYI the reason Hampshire were involved is simple. They are the Fosters local force and LP just logically delegated the task to them and PC Barham went to collect the items and took them to DC Martin to examine them. I get why it seems odd that the items were delivered late evening to the home address of the examiner, but put this down to wanting it done quickly. This was only 5 days later remember and abduction was still a real possibility.

If there was anything dodgy about this surely it is obvious LP wouldn't have forwarded on the email that is in the files!

I can't find the thread to link but the more detailed look into the Olympus and Hampshire Police was discussed in a thread at MMM. IIRC, it was the member 'Seahorse' that figured out the "NALF" reference being Mr Fosters initials. PeterMac also posted, I think.

Textusa releases new statement (6 Nov 2015) on 'The Last Photo' - says it is a photoshopped composite of THREE different photographs, two of which were taken on Friday 18 May 2007

The Last Photo...