Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by HelenMeg 14.07.14 18:37

PeterMac wrote:The Last Photo was examined in detail some time ago by two people whose professions depend on photo shopping.
In one case taking stuff out so that it is of TV and film quality (gantries, cranes, shadows and so on removed so that only the car or whatever is left)
In the other case by a University Professor (US) who has written specific algorithms, for the Security Services amongst others, to detect photo shopping.

Both totally independently say the photo itself seems to be OK. The double lines etc visible at high magnification are artefacts caused by compression and transfer.
But both draw attention to the ease with which a knowledgable individual could alter the time and date in the meta-data
(And we remember that our attention was drawn by Mitchell specifically to the time and date - and once that creature has pointed, one needs to look in the opposite direction !)

The fact remains it was NOT hot and sticky and calm at 2.29 on 3/5/7 Nor at 1;29, nor 3;29. Nor at all:29
It was cold and windy
It WAS hot and sticky and calm on Sunday 29/4/7, the first full day - new clothes, running about, exploring, getting bearings, sun glasses, first bit of heat, sweaty face,
and as everyone in the world does on the first day of a holiday - LOTS OF PHOTOS, in case the weather changes. Which it did.

Make of that what you will.

Assuming it was taken on 29th April Sunday, then why was it important to present it as the last photo taken on afternoon of the 3rd May.

To provide evidence that Gerry and / or Madeleine were at the side of the pool in Ocean Club at 2:29 that afternoon.
So maybe to prove Madeleine was still alive that afternoon or to prove Gerry's whereabouts that afternoon. Why was it so important to do that.
I dont think Gerry was about that afternoon. If you read through the Rog statements of the TAPAS 7 then everyone is vague about Gerry's location. If Gery did need to conceal his whereabouts that afternoon then this implies that M was already dead by then.

Ive always believed she was alive until early that evening - but this need to provide a timed photo of where Gerry and Madeleine were that afternoon appears to indicate otherwise.

by j.rob 14.07.14 19:17

Kate: 'the first 48 hours you are non-functioning.' 48 hours after *what* exactly? Accident/abuse/realisation of inevitable outcome/death?

Still think *something* happened the night Mrs Fenn heard crying. Despite having been a potential important witness, she gets an earful from Kate and Jane. If the crying incident was Monday, the next 48 hours would be up to Wednesday late evening. By Thursday Kate was functioning enough to tell the police that she was convinced that her daughter had been abducted.

That interview in which she makes the 'first 48 hours' comment is very telling. ''We had been very busy' she says. Busy doing what, exactly?

And while Kate admits she was 'non-functioning', Gerry appears to have been functioning quite normally, to the extent of inviting the winsome aerobics instructor to join his table for dinner one evening.

With regard to the photos up thread showing Kate and Gerry allegedly carrying the twins, and taken/ published on 12th May I think? Is this a 'key date?' I wonder what was going on at around this time? Where was Madeleine?

I think those pics share some of the 'creepy' qualities of some of the other photos (many of which look photoshopped) produced by TM at 'key' dates. Gerry's demonic expression, twins looking different to other photos of them ( especially Sean - no way does he look like a 2 year old). Amelie being carried awkwardly by Gerry - very awkwardly. I'm not sure you could even lift a child like that with the fingers of one hand doubled back on themselves like that. And, again, no contact from Amelie - the hand near him is strangely positioned not holding on to h as you would Kate: 'the first 48 hours you are non-functioning.' 48 hours after *what* exactly? Accident/abuse/realisation of inevitable outcome/death?

I wonder if the reason there are so few photos of any of their children that holiday is so that none of them can ever be properly identified. I noticed that even when Gerry is photographed coming off the plane holding Sean, you can't see his face as he appears in a deep sleep with his face against Gerry. Odd, when you consider all the hullabaloo of landing. You would expect a toddler to have woken up on landing.

So, still no 'normal' photos as far as I can see.

Poor little Madeleine, I don' t think she ever stood a chance.

by Guest 14.07.14 19:21

You need to clean that post up j.rob, it's a mess.

by Sonmi-451 14.07.14 19:39

@ PeterMac & @HelenMeg

I haven't seen the comments from the experts, so it's good to hear it's been done and I'll see if I can track down their findings. I trust their formal credibility stands for something when they say "the photo itself seems to be OK".

I've chipped in two or three times to say, across two or three threads, that my job involves working with 'family photos' and I have never seen any evidence at all of any malicious tinkering, (e.g. "pasting Head A on Body B", "Major Photoshopping", 'mysterious folds of skin', etc.)... but that the analysis of photos is a worthwhile topic in so far as how published images fit with/conflict with the formally promoted timeline. That's the area where immutable facts can be teased out and 'banked' as reasonable evidence, not supposition about a neck-fold or a 'bad facial expression'. Furthermore there's a potential motive for saying that a particular photo was taken on Day X and not on Day Z, whilst I would suggest that there is no reasonable motive for (badly) Photoshopping out a limb, or a pair of nostrils, etc.

n.b. Changing meta-data tags is quite easy to do (it was never intended to be a 'secure' tag) and I bet all my kids know how to do it... or could work it out in minutes ! big grin

by **PeterMac** 14.07.14 19:47

HelenMeg wrote:
Assuming it was taken on 29th April Sunday, then why was it important to present it as the last photo taken on afternoon of the 3rd May.

To provide evidence that Gerry and / or Madeleine were at the side of the pool in Ocean Club at 2:29 that afternoon.
So maybe to prove Madeleine was still alive that afternoon or to prove Gerry's whereabouts that afternoon. Why was it so important to do that.
I dont think Gerry was about that afternoon. If you read through the Rog statements of the TAPAS 7 then everyone is vague about Gerry's location. If Gery did need to conceal his whereabouts that afternoon then this implies that M was already dead by then.
Ive always believed she was alive until early that evening - but this need to provide a timed photo of where Gerry and Madeleine were that afternoon appears to indicate otherwise.

Quite so
The photo is there to provide "proof" that Madeleine was alive and well at lunchtime that day.
And that Gerry was around.
That is the day when he called off sick from the tennis, with his Achilles Tendon injury.
He therefore has the whole afternoon free, until he re-appears, from the Miraculous cure of St Katherine of the Immaculate Multiple Conceptions
and plays tennis like a demon all through the later afternoon and evening, forgoing even such small parental enjoyment as putting the children to bed and reading them a story.
He delegates this task to a "friend".
The Saintly Kate meanwhile is sent on a LONG run, down to the beach, to establish a proper alibi, by being seen by the Tapas group,
The Tapas group have in their turn been sent to the Paraiso bar to parade up and down in front of the CCTV, and to establish their own alibis, and that of St Kate.

They are all well out of the way and not one of them can therefore be questioned in detail about what went on anywhere else.

All they know know is . . .
what they were told.

And it is this train of though which pushes me towards PURPORTING the evening and night of 2nd, with neither parent realising what had happened for the reasons we know, separate bedrooms, argument / cross, stomping about, possibly without putting the lights on - we know how they didn't even do that when they were "checking" the children - but not finding a little crumpled body, unconscious, and dying of a sub-arachnoid, down the back of the sofa, until the following morning, when she is stiff and cold, and has leaked t the tiles.

Then in their distress - and I do not for one moment imagine they were not devastated - indeed it may be the depth of their grief which caused them to lose control of their rational side -
in their distress, they make a series of decisions which on mature reflection they might wish to have made differently.

by **PeterMac** 14.07.14 19:51

Sonmi-451 wrote:@ PeterMac & @HelenMeg
I haven't seen the comments from the experts, so it's good to hear it's been done and I'll see if I can track down their findings. I trust their formal credibility stands for something when they say "the photo itself seems to be OK".
:

I have never posted their reports here.
They were given in confidence and were supplied to Grange a long time ago, like a lot of other confidential stuff..

by Guest 14.07.14 20:21

Confidentiality is a word, that counts, Peter.
Thank you so much for all your efforts.
IMO and D.V. one day this case will be solved.

by j.rob 15.07.14 7:19

candyfloss wrote:You need to clean that post up j.rob, it's a mess.

Oops, somehow I managed to double post part of the post but don't know how to edit it now.

I've removed the duplicate paragraphs. NFWTD.

by Sonmi-451 17.07.14 3:00

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

To the left - above the bright white thing, I see a white dog, mournful-looking thing, black ears with a black patch on its rump.

On the right I see the face of a brown dog, which looks to be carrying something in its mouth.

My interpretations, anyhow...

I have deleted your comment as it was a little too expressive for me, S.

I think that missbeetle was intending to be humorous at the expense of over-analysing of photos. I really hope that she wasn't being serious! NFWTD.

by j.rob 18.07.14 9:15

missbeetle wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:
missbeetle wrote:Thank you, J.Rob for your observations, all noted and nodded at!

Mr Oxblood Shoes in the background looks like a rum one...!

I do think that the shorts are the same, though - no dark denim for Gerald.

Perhaps the grimace evinced by Gerry was also partly to do with the costume he is wearing.

Not a pin-striped suit, nor a dashing polo shirt and blazer combo -

...a grubby white Tshirt.

Sunlight soap would be my housewifely recommendation here.

After all, sunlight is the best dinsinfectant.
Are you saying it's murat then?

As I said before missbeetle I am astounded by the depth and breadth of research and detail in your posts.

Where DO you find the time amongst all your housewifely duties??

All imo

Crikey, no - Mr Oxblood Shoes looks a smoother mover than Murat.

I will admit I have burnt more than a few dinners looking up incongruities in these stories...

I am a housewife - proudly so, even - however my house will never look as immaculate as Rothley Towers.

I'm not yet menopausal - 43 this year - but I am looking forward to cronehood.

Meanwhile I am quite happy to rock the appellation 'middle-aged housewife'.

No gladioli - from the Latin for sword - in my flowers arrangements though.

I do agree that Gerry's grubby T-shirt could benefit from a good hot whites only wash and a nice press, especially when you consider these were PR photos. Perhaps he was saving some scents for the sniffer dogs? Nothing like a well worn cotton T- shirt to gather some rich odours.

Missbeetle - do consider gladioli for your future flower arrangements! Such mighty triumphant blooms and I was unaware of their Latin derivation.

But who is 'smooth mover' Mr Oxblood Shoes' who appears in photos taken on a photo-shoot day? And who is the boy that Kate is carrying who looks nothing like Sean? And why did 'PR photos' select a photo of Gerald, appearing to be carrying Amelie, in which his face is distorted into a truly scary grimace and she appears to be flung awkwardly into the air?

(Is anyone able to post up these two photos on their own?)

I mean, usually in cases of kidnapped children there will be a line up of the family looking sad and worried and grief/stricken, holding onto each other and making anguished appeals. That photo is completely different, so why publish it?

And for those who think there is sometimes over analysis. All I will say is that the devil is often in the detail as any good housewife will know?! But surely that should be 'house person' as I am sure there are just as many husbands or indeed men who perhaps consider that 'cleanliness is next to Godliness!'

(Scuttles away in shame with a grubby duster....!)

by missbeetle 18.07.14 10:16

A soak in a bucket of Napisan overnight keeps those whites sparkling, too...

Gerry's shirt's a shocker.

Almost looks like he had to borrow it from someone less hygienic than him.

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

Possibly even a rather smelly man...

I wouldn't have put it past Gerry to confuse the trail of scents...

I've always thought somehow Gerry McCann would smell like Imperial Leather soap.

The guy behind him - I've no idea who he is or how he might fit into the story...

...but I am liking how his oxblood shoes match the sports car to the right.

Gerry's shorts seem to be trying to semaphore their own message above his lily-white legs.

by j.rob 18.07.14 14:38

missbeetle wrote:A soak in a bucket of Napisan overnight keeps those whites sparkling, too...

Gerry's shirt's a shocker.

Almost looks like he had to borrow it from someone less hygienic than him.

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

Possibly even a rather smelly man...

I wouldn't have put it past Gerry to confuse the trail of scents...

I've always thought somehow Gerry McCann would smell like Imperial Leather soap.

The guy behind him - I've no idea who he is or how he might fit into the story...

...but I am liking how his oxblood shoes match the sports car to the right.

Gerry's shorts seem to be trying to semaphore their own message above his lily-white legs.

Enough to make you wonder exactly whose scent the sniffer dogs were following on the night of Madeleine's disappearance? Given that the photos that the McCanns released of Madeleine were neither up to date or accurate, one has to ask if the clothes/bedding given for the sniffer dogs was similarly misleading. As you say, confusing the trail or scent appears to be a McCann hallmark.

On which note, not only does Sean not look like Sean in that photo, but Gerry is smiling in a most uncharacteristic manner - is this even Gerry?!

by MrsC 18.07.14 14:42

j.rob wrote:
missbeetle wrote:A soak in a bucket of Napisan overnight keeps those whites sparkling, too...

Gerry's shirt's a shocker.

Almost looks like he had to borrow it from someone less hygienic than him.

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

Possibly even a rather smelly man...

I wouldn't have put it past Gerry to confuse the trail of scents...

I've always thought somehow Gerry McCann would smell like Imperial Leather soap.

The guy behind him - I've no idea who he is or how he might fit into the story...

...but I am liking how his oxblood shoes match the sports car to the right.

Gerry's shorts seem to be trying to semaphore their own message above his lily-white legs.

Enough to make you wonder exactly whose scent the sniffer dogs were following on the night of Madeleine's disappearance? Given that the photos that the McCanns released of Madeleine were neither up to date or accurate, one has to ask if the clothes/bedding given for the sniffer dogs was similarly misleading. As you say, confusing the trail or scent appears to be a McCann hallmark.

On which note, not only does Sean not look like Sean in that photo, but Gerry is smiling in a most uncharacteristic manner - is this even Gerry?!

A double act, no less. Or one and the same?

by j.rob 18.07.14 15:11

If this photo is supposed to be of 12th May, what I wonder was happening on that date?

I am also curious about the Wednesday evening - the night before Madeleine was allegedly abducted. Given the emphasis that Kate places in her book onto the possibility that the abductor may have entered the apartment that evening and attempted to drug Madeleine (the pyjama stain which Kate washed out on Thursday). Why would Kate flag up the possibility of drugging on both Wednesday and Thursday evenings?

So Kate herself is flagging up the possibility of some kind of 'dummy run' on the Wednesday, or thwarted attempt at something.

I wonder where the twins were that evening, given Kate's comment about Madeleine allegedly asking on Thursday morning 'where were you when Sean and I cried last night?' This suggests to me that Sean may not have been in the apartment on Wednesday evening.

What happened on Wednesday evening, or - perhaps more pertinent - what was supposed to happen?
This was the evening, coincidentally perhaps, that film producer Jeremy Wilkins carried his three year old daughter wrapped in a blanket ( from the night crèche back to his apartment?)

by Guest 18.07.14 17:30

12th May is MBM's birthday.

Some info here:

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

by Guest 18.07.14 17:42

Sonmi-451 wrote:
missbeetle wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]"

To the left - above the bright white thing, I see a white dog, mournful-looking thing, black ears with a black patch on its rump.

On the right I see the face of a brown dog, which looks to be carrying something in its mouth.

My interpretations, anyhow...
I have deleted your comment as it was a little too expressive for me, S.

I think that missbeetle was intending to be humorous at the expense of over-analysing of photos. I really hope that she wasn't being serious! NFWTD.

I have deleted your comment as it was a little too expressive for me, S.

I wasn't aware that we could delete other member's posts if they affected us in any way.

Sonmi-451 is certainly asserting himself on this forum.

by rainbow-fairy 18.07.14 19:13

Ladyinred wrote:
Sonmi-451 wrote:
missbeetle wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]"

To the left - above the bright white thing, I see a white dog, mournful-looking thing, black ears with a black patch on its rump.

On the right I see the face of a brown dog, which looks to be carrying something in its mouth.

My interpretations, anyhow...
I have deleted your comment as it was a little too expressive for me, S.

I think that missbeetle was intending to be humorous at the expense of over-analysing of photos. I really hope that she wasn't being serious! NFWTD.
I have deleted your comment as it was a little too expressive for me, S.

I wasn't aware that we could delete other member's posts if they affected us in any way.

Sonmi-451 is certainly asserting himself on this forum.

'We' can't delete comments, LIR - NFWTD can as she is an admin yes

I'm not altogether sure that 'asserting' is the word I would use tbh

by kimHager 18.07.14 19:14

Lady i too saw this and as im not for sure who all the mods are i would msg candyfloss in a private msg.I think issues should be discussed in private unless it involves the forum as a.whole.otherwise it seems to get off topic and tempermental LOL...

by Guest 18.07.14 19:17

I will not repeat the comment that I deleted; it was most unsavoury.

Let's move on please.

by Guest 18.07.14 19:20

Yes, I now realise No Fate deleted Sonmi's post.

by NickE 18.07.14 20:42

missbeetle wrote:A soak in a bucket of Napisan overnight keeps those whites sparkling, too...

Gerry's shirt's a shocker.

Almost looks like he had to borrow it from someone less hygienic than him.

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

Possibly even a rather smelly man...

I wouldn't have put it past Gerry to confuse the trail of scents...

I've always thought somehow Gerry McCann would smell like Imperial Leather soap.

The guy behind him - I've no idea who he is or how he might fit into the story...

...but I am liking how his oxblood shoes match the sports car to the right.

Gerry's shorts seem to be trying to semaphore their own message above his lily-white legs.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
7 Sep 2007 Police station at Portimao
Gerry looking over his shoulder, looks like he knows these men in some way!!??

by missbeetle 18.07.14 21:34

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

Could he be the unidentified man to the left assisting Kate with her candle?

His belt looks like it'd tone in with those shoes of his.

Perhaps he is a Bell Pottinger employee?

Who Gerry does - and doesn't - know in Praia da Luz is indeed a mystery...

by Guest 18.07.14 22:40

missbeetle, I've just noticed the photo above your name and details on the right. Kate is dressed similarly in the photos where she's posing looking saintly, with professional make up and hair. Do you know when and why the pics were taken?

Gerry's scratching his nose - must have been asked an awkward question.

by Guest 18.07.14 22:49

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

Judging by the photo on this link, the one on MB's avatar was taken at the same time around the 3rd anniversary in 2010.

by Guest 18.07.14 22:54

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Judging by the photo on this link, the one on MB's avatar was taken at the same time around the 3rd anniversary in 2010.

Thanks, No Fate, I've just found them too on Pamalam.