Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by Woofer 06.08.14 17:04

PeterMac wrote:
Automated Response‏

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Add to contacts 10/06/2014
To: pmac* * * * hotmail.com

Many thanks for taking the time to contact the Operation Grange mailbox.
Your email will be read by one of the officers on the enquiry team. You will appreciate that we receive a large volume of emails as part of this enquiry and as a result you may not necessarily receive any further contact from us. If, however we need to contact you further, an officer will be in touch in due course.

My guess is that it will then be logged into the HOLMES II system.

So, if there`s ever an Inquiry into the failings of Operation Grange, no one can say they weren`t informed. (Unless of course they say all their files got lost !! which is the usual excuse these days).

by Research_Reader 06.08.14 18:02

PeterMac wrote:
My guess is that it will then be logged into the HOLMES II system.

This software sounds fascinating, and potentially very useful.

by Nina 06.08.14 18:04

Research_Reader wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
My guess is that it will then be logged into the HOLMES II system.

This software sounds fascinating, and potentially very useful.

Pardon my ignorance but what happens once it is logged in?

by Research_Reader 06.08.14 18:06

Nina wrote:
Research_Reader wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
My guess is that it will then be logged into the HOLMES II system.

This software sounds fascinating, and potentially very useful.

Pardon my ignorance but what happens once it is logged in?

I believe the system cross-correlates lots of various bits of evidence, witness statements, and relationship-connections between witnesses then flags up areas of inconsistency or possible lies.

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

I love the way they obviously reverse-fit the name of the system to create the acronym!

by Hicks 06.08.14 18:09

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

Is this the same thing?

by tungsten tel 06.08.14 18:42

When I blow up the last photo I can vaguely see a face under the chair . It reminds me of GM for some reason (smithman efit) . Just wondered if its a photoshop error when they changed the original .

by aiyoyo 06.08.14 18:51

Nina wrote:
Research_Reader wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
My guess is that it will then be logged into the HOLMES II system.

This software sounds fascinating, and potentially very useful.

Pardon my ignorance but what happens once it is logged in?[/quote

HOLMES = Home Office Large Major Enquiry System

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

by Guest 06.08.14 19:54

tungsten tel wrote:When I blow up the last photo I can vaguely see a face under the chair . It reminds me of GM for some reason (smithman efit) . Just wondered if its a photoshop error when they changed the original .

You mean this?

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

Not as odd as this.

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

by Hicks 06.08.14 21:58

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
tungsten tel wrote:When I blow up the last photo I can vaguely see a face under the chair . It reminds me of GM for some reason (smithman efit) . Just wondered if its a photoshop error when they changed the original .

You mean this?

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

Not as odd as this.

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

I don't want to start any silliness regarding the photos......but...if you magnify the top photo ...well... it looks demonic. Think it's time to lie down!

by Guest 06.08.14 22:33

Hicks wrote:
I don't want to start any silliness regarding the photos......but...if you magnify the top photo ...well... it looks demonic. Think it's time to lie down!

Sorry Hicks. If it's any consolation, I scared myself with that! I just had a good look at some photos of mine taken with a very similar camera model and I'm now more convinced than ever that there's something very, very wrong with this photo.

by inspirespirit 07.08.14 6:54

aiyoyo wrote:
Nina wrote:
Research_Reader wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
My guess is that it will then be logged into the HOLMES II system.

This software sounds fascinating, and potentially very useful.

Pardon my ignorance but what happens once it is logged in?[/quote

HOLMES = Home Office Large Major Enquiry System

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

Wow ! they have software that compares anomalies in statements. Surprised it didn't blow up when they input the Tapas lot's statements. No excuse for O.G then. Any copper worth his salt would know something dodgy has gone on.

by **PeterMac** 07.08.14 9:33

HOLMES II, WATSON (now sadly renamed Xanalys Link), Coplink, ANACAPA and several other computer programmes have been developed for tracking evidence, people and exhibits through an enquiry

See for example
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
and Coplink
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Watson
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

All very powerful, and all would immediately flag up the absurd contradictions in the Tapas statements, not to mention the more obvious changes of story by the McCanns themselves.

by Carrry On Doctor 07.08.14 9:46

Peter

It is fair to say that OG, and the 35 strong team, and the CPS who were immediately brought in by AR following him taking charge of the case, with the aid of fairly sophisticated statement and timeline analysis software, view the version of events presented on 3rd like a Swiss cheese? Would you agree ?

In light of the above, do you, as person better placed than most of us, think that this case will be (or can be) whitewashed ?

The pending retirement of AR concerns me. Do you think this is significant ?

Thanks

by aiyoyo 07.08.14 10:58

Super expensive software tool to have but how useful to the Police force?

How much time is spent mastering the academic of software to work for your benefit than field work?

by Carrry On Doctor 07.08.14 11:18

Peter

In hindsight, I may be asking questions you would rather not give an opinion on. Apologies.

Any thoughts on the matter would be welcome though.

by canada12 07.08.14 19:54

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Peter

In hindsight, I may be asking questions you would rather not give an opinion on. Apologies.

Any thoughts on the matter would be welcome though.

Just say "No comment," PeterMac, and we'll know the answer, LOL big grin

by tungsten tel 07.08.14 21:00

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
tungsten tel wrote:When I blow up the last photo I can vaguely see a face under the chair . It reminds me of GM for some reason (smithman efit) . Just wondered if its a photoshop error when they changed the original .

You mean this?

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

Not as odd as this.

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

by NickE 08.08.14 22:12

Witness statement Amy Tierney:

"When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware, which could read from memory sticks.

She went to her room and returned to the Tapas with the printer where she printed out 20 to 30 photographs of the girl, using her own paper, in 10x15 format mentioned previously. The memory stick containing the photos belonged to the McCann couple, and came from their camera".

Did PJ had access to all 20-30 photographs?

by TheTruthWillOut 08.08.14 22:23

I don't think that is 20-30 photographs NickE, but 20-30 copies of a single image of Madeleine? Could be wrong, but I sadly doubt 20-30 photos of Madeleine were taken on that holiday with how little time she spent with her parents:(

by Guest 08.08.14 22:37

That's what I think, TTWO.

These are all the holiday photos.

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

There are only five, plus the grainy airport video.

by canada12 08.08.14 22:52

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:That's what I think, TTWO.

These are all the holiday photos.

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

There are only five, plus the grainy airport video.

Is the photograph that Amy printed out, the one which was distributed on the initial posters, this one?

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

or was it this one?

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

Both were used, IIRC, in the initial posters that went up around PDL, and I believe were likely the ones that were distributed around the town in the first instance. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

What I'm wondering is, if the police are able to tell which camera these photos came from? According to PeterMac, The Last Photo came from the camera which was not confiscated by the police for some reason. Did the above two photos also come from the camera which was not confiscated by the police? Or did they come from the camera which was taken by the police and examined?

Or did they come from someone else's camera entirely - ie, NOT the McCanns' cameras at all.

by **PeterMac** 09.08.14 8:03

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

The pixel aspect ratio shown indicates that this was not taken on the Canon, but may have been on the Olympus

by canada12 09.08.14 9:02

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

The pixel aspect ratio shown indicates that this was not taken on the Canon, but may have been on the Olympus

So, Olympus handed in, Canon not handed in, correct?

If this was taken on the Olympus, why is it not in the police files? Or was it just not shown in the police files that we can see on Pamalam's site? Or was it on a separate memory stick that was never handed over to the police at all?

Just wondering.

by aiyoyo 09.08.14 9:11

Date the photo is created for AFP release is shown.

Date photo is taken is unknown.
Was it taken at holiday or an old photo?

by canada12 09.08.14 9:25

aiyoyo wrote:Date the photo is created for AFP release is shown.

Date photo is taken is unknown.
Was it taken at holiday or an old photo?

If it was taken on holiday and on the McCanns Olympus then it should have been handed in to the PJ.
If it was taken on holiday and taken on the McCanns Olympus and it was not handed in to the PJ, then was it on a different memory card than the one that was in the camera that was handed to the PJ?
if it was not taken on holiday and it was on the McCanns Olympus (ie it was taken before the holiday) and it was not handed in to the PJ, then it must have been on a different memory card than the one in the camera that was handed to the PJ. Does that make sense?

I guess what I'm working out is whether the McCanns had more than one memory card with them for the Olympus, and whether or not they handed all the memory cards in to the PJ. Or did they just hand in the Olympus with a next to useless memory card in it?

Or was that photo of Madeleine not on the McCanns' Olympus at all - but on someone else''s memory stick?

ETA it HAD to have been a photo taken earlier than the holiday, because the little girl we've been told is Madeleine in the other photos from the holiday has much longer hair.

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

as opposed to:

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