Further Analysis of the Last Photo

Hair grows at half an inch a month, so someone can work out when that upper photo was taken.
The Olympus and TWO memory sticks were sent to Hampshire (- don't ask ! -) for analysis arriving on 8th and being examined on 9th
The Canon was firmly
on the dining table during the early hours of 4th
in St Katherine's possession on 10th

Stil don't know where the other photo which was released to the British press and front cover of the book was located.

Apart from the tennis photo and pool photo mentioned as taken on holiday, no mention was ever made of when (as in how long ago) the rest of the earlier released photos were taken.
It's fairly obvious the initial released photos were definitely not from the holiday batch.

It's apparent they'd recklessly produced random old photos without concerns for them not being of real time for useful purpose.  When real time image/s seemed of no real concern to them in initial release why was it suddenly important for them to highlight discrepancy in the last photo?  

Incorrect time on the canon setting will affect all images captured on that camera.
If the tennis photo was also taken from the Cannon then it would be very odd that time discrepancy was fussed over the family photo (pool photo) and not the solo one (tennis photo).

The Last Photo was released - we assume by Mitchell - to the French press agency AFP
It is bottom right on this page, with all the pixel date shown, confirming that it was the Canon
The extensive Metadata was shown on another web page.

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

Camera (+video camera) & memory cards  sent to Hampshire:
 
Snippets from statement of: Stuart William Martin dated 9^th May 2007
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
2. On 8th May at 21.00 hours, the following was delivered to my home address by PC 178 Barham, requesting they be examined to establish if they contained pictures and video footage of a hotel complex in Praia da Luz.
 
ID ref Description
NALF/1 Video tape from Sony Handicam Video Camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07
 
NALF/2 64 MB camera memory card from Olympus C50 camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07
 
NALF/3 32 MB camera memory card from Olympus C50 camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07
 
3. Video tape from Sony Handicam Video Camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07 (NALF 1)
 
On 9th May 2007 at 08.30 I delivered this video camera in the sealed bag number CD 48113 to the imaging unit at Hampshire Police Support headquarters, Netley for examination. I conducted no examination of this bag and contents.
 
11. I examined the data from the two cards and located 43 pictures in the live area of the two cards.
 
12. I produced these pictures as identification references SWM/3019/01 to SWM/3019/43
 
18. Using my forensic software I was able to locate 73 pictures files in the unallocated clusters which had been deleted and were no longer accessible to the camera user.
 
21. Unallocated clusters
 
22. Unallocated clusters are clusters on a drive that are not currently assigned to a file. Also called free space. A file may either occupy one or more clusters. The clusters that a file occupies are not necessarily contiguous. Some of these clusters may still contain data from files that have been deleted but not yet overwritten by other files.
 
23. When the data is extracted from the unallocated clusters there are not imes and dates or file names attributed to the data. My forensic software therefore saved the data in file format and named the files according to the location of the data within the unallocated clusters.
 
So potentially there were 116 photos available from this camera, plus the video. I don’t think we are able to attribute which photos from the collection available on the PJ files came from this camera, but the PJ & SY would have been able to, sort them into time order and also look at ‘proper’ (not greyed-out) photos.

AND WHERE IS THE VIDEO ? ?

canada12 wrote:

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.]

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

The photo was an old one and moreover on a memory stick that had been brought with them on holiday. The thread above discussed this and I did a bit of research into the specs of the McCanns' 2 cameras and Amy's Kodak printer.

The printer used did not have a slot for a camera's memory card, nor could another manufacturer's camera dock directly onto the Kodak printer (i.e. the pictures could not be printed direct from the Olympus nor the Canon).

So the only way that particular printer could have produced those photos is by a USB link to a PC or a memory stick (note, NOT a camera's memory CARD) being inserted into the printer's USB port. However, neither the Olympus nor the Canon have the facility (as far as I could discover) to download direct to a memory stick. Both cameras must first download onto a PC and from the PC to the stick.

So unless they found a handy PC available amonsgt the chaos of that night that memory stick was pre-prepared and taken with them on holiday.

Now why on earth would they do that? It may be me, but I wouldn't dream of taking a full memory stick on holiday with me. When would I have use for it on holiday? So I can only conclude there must have been a specific reason for that memory stick to be present on that night...

My own thoughts and opinion.

Thank you, Dee Coy. I think there has been a lot of confusion over a "memory stick" and a "memory card". And by presenting your analysis as above, you've proved that to be the case. I think the confusion was deliberate, and I think it was presented that way by TM and it seems the police never bothered to try and un-confuse the confusion. Or, if they did, we haven't been privvy to those conclusions.

The police records show that they received MEMORY CARDS from the cameras. Not memory sticks. A memory stick is a tiny flash drive, very portable, perhaps not as well known or as much in use in 2007 as they are now? I follow your logic completely.

The digital cameras they used would have held memory cards.
The printer that was used to print the photos had the ability to read from a memory stick (flash drive inserted into a USB port) but not the ability to read a camera memory card.
TM would not likely have travelled with laptops or computers which would have enabled them to transfer the photos from their cameras to a memory stick (flash drive).
Therefore:
1. They travelled with the photo(s) already on a memory stick (flash drive) as you suggest above
or
2. In a very short space of time, they were able to locate someone who had a laptop or computer, which would allow them to transfer their pictures onto a memory stick (flash drive).

I have a digital camera which allows me to plug one end of a wire into the camera and the other end into a USB port and download my photos that way. It's an older model digital camera. It's possible that may have also been the case with the McCann cameras, but they would have had to have been travelling with the appropriate wire, which isn't unheard of. I keep mine in the camera's carrying case with spare batteries.

But the fact is that a printer which could download from a camera using a wire, was NOT asked for.. A printer which could read from a memory stick (flash drive) WAS asked for.

So - either TM had very fast access to a computer (in which case, why didn't they also have very fast access to a printer?). Or, as you say, they had the memory stick (flash drive) with them.

I tend to go along with the second theory, which is the same as yours. And I can think of one very good reason why they'd have photos on a flash drive with them. And it's a reason which has come up again and again.

Thanks for clarifying that.

So we're pretty certain the memory stick (flash drive) was never handed over to the police, aren't we? And that perhaps certain confusions were put in place, perhaps exploiting the language gap, so that the police never thought to ask for the memory STICK (flash drive) as opposed to the memory CARDs, which they did get.

That pretty much sums it up, canada   .

I didn't think of a camera to USB port lead, that is a possibility but, like you say, a memory stick-compatible printer was asked for.

Oh god, I really couldn't think of a plausible reason for them to take the prepared stick with them unless it was part of a pre-arranged plan, but you've made me see another evil possibility. How sickening this whole thing is, from whichever angle you look at it. (More speculation only, as ever.)

Dee Coy wrote:That pretty much sums it up, canada   .

I didn't think of a camera to USB port lead, that is a possibility but, like you say, a memory stick-compatible printer was asked for.

Oh god, I really couldn't think of a plausible reason for them to take the prepared stick with them unless it was part of a pre-arranged plan, but you've made me see another evil possibility. How sickening this whole thing is, from whichever angle you look at it. (More speculation only, as ever.)

And thinking back to those 73 deleted pictures retrieved from the memory card by forensic software.... :bad:

@DC and C12,

Or it could be the other way around.
They could have had their PC with them but could not use internet as no wifi access in the apt. However, opening up photos stored in the PC does not require internet access.
In that case, no memory (as in usb) stick is involved.
PC could be directly wired to printer by a cable.

The other possibility is they could have brought along portable wifi dongle that allows mobile wifi access.

Unless it is a known fact that they did not have their PC and mobile wifi dongle with them, then it is difficult to say why they happened to have a USB stick bearing old photos with them. It's not uncommon for people to bring usb stick on holiday in case they need to do some work, even if from an internet cafe.

It seems unlikely they used internet cafe during holiday since there is no report of that.
But that does not preclude they may have had their PC plus mobile wifi dongle with them.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:That pretty much sums it up, canada   .

I didn't think of a camera to USB port lead, that is a possibility but, like you say, a memory stick-compatible printer was asked for.

Oh god, I really couldn't think of a plausible reason for them to take the prepared stick with them unless it was part of a pre-arranged plan, but you've made me see another evil possibility. How sickening this whole thing is, from whichever angle you look at it. (More speculation only, as ever.)

And thinking back to those 73 deleted pictures retrieved from the memory card by forensic software.... :bad:

43 images on two memory cards seem very little for holiday with children.
Normal people take load of snapshots of their children while on holiday.
The whole point of it is to freeze those unforgettable times that cannot be recaptured.
73 photos hardly consumed memory space at all, it makes no sense to delete them.
They are just very weird couple.

Aiyoyo:
 
‘73 photos hardly consumed memory space at all, it makes no sense to delete them’.
 
Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but not necessarily.
 
I have a small digital and when I download the photos, it gives the option to delete them from the card, which I usually do.
 
Conversely, my wife’s little camera, she downloads but keeps the photos on there and has around 700 photos on there at present.

aiyoyo wrote:
43 images on two memory cards seem very little for holiday with children.
Normal people take load of snapshots of their children while on holiday.
The whole point of it is to freeze those unforgettable times that cannot be recaptured.
73 photos hardly consumed memory space at all, it makes no sense to delete them.
They are just very weird couple.  

And both of the cameras can take significant amounts of video footage.
The sort of thing normal parents take of their children, in the pool, on the tennis court, sailing, falling in, laughing, enjoying themselves. . .
Where is that ?
And where is the video camera and tape / disc that was sent to Hampshire.
And what was on it ?

PeterMac wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:
43 images on two memory cards seem very little for holiday with children.
Normal people take load of snapshots of their children while on holiday.
The whole point of it is to freeze those unforgettable times that cannot be recaptured.
73 photos hardly consumed memory space at all, it makes no sense to delete them.
They are just very weird couple.  

And both of the cameras can take significant amounts of video footage.
The sort of thing normal parents take of their children, in the pool, on the tennis court, sailing, falling in, laughing, enjoying themselves. . .
Where is that ?
And where is the video camera and tape / disc that was sent to Hampshire.
And what was on it ?

'And what was on it'?...... Or WHO was on it?

PeterMac wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:
43 images on two memory cards seem very little for holiday with children.
Normal people take load of snapshots of their children while on holiday.
The whole point of it is to freeze those unforgettable times that cannot be recaptured.
73 photos hardly consumed memory space at all, it makes no sense to delete them.
They are just very weird couple.  

And both of the cameras can take significant amounts of video footage.
The sort of thing normal parents take of their children, in the pool, on the tennis court, sailing, falling in, laughing, enjoying themselves. . .
Where is that ?
And where is the video camera and tape / disc that was sent to Hampshire.
And what was on it ?

This is a question the PJ and Portuguese authorities ought to know the answer to and if they don't why don't they?

aiyoyo wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:That pretty much sums it up, canada   .

I didn't think of a camera to USB port lead, that is a possibility but, like you say, a memory stick-compatible printer was asked for.

Oh god, I really couldn't think of a plausible reason for them to take the prepared stick with them unless it was part of a pre-arranged plan, but you've made me see another evil possibility. How sickening this whole thing is, from whichever angle you look at it. (More speculation only, as ever.)

And thinking back to those 73 deleted pictures retrieved from the memory card by forensic software.... :bad:

43 images on two memory cards seem very little for holiday with children.
Normal people take load of snapshots of their children while on holiday.
The whole point of it is to freeze those unforgettable times that cannot be recaptured.
73 photos hardly consumed memory space at all, it makes no sense to delete them.
They are just very weird couple.  

There are no 'normal' photos from that holiday. There are also no 'normal' photos from Kate's psychotic book. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that it was not in any shape or form a 'normal' family holiday. Nor are the Mcs or their friends 'normal'. Given that 'normal' covers quite a wide range of behaviours, the Mcs and their friends are pretty much off the range, IMO. 'Outliers' in terms of statistics. At least I hope this is the case. Unless this type of behaviour is 'normal' in the NHS.

In which case, God help us all.

What the hell WAS going on that week? Given the emphasis that K and G and their friends have given to how M was having such a lovely time and Such a perfect holiday I think I will assume that the exact  opposite was happening. 

Sickening. I find them all sickening. And to think they are working in a profession where people put trust and faith in their integrity. If I was unlucky enough to be referred to one of them I would make it very clear that under no circumstances would I see them in a professional capacity, or any capacity, for that matter.

Poor Madeleine. How cynically and cruelly exploited by those who just didn't care, IMO.

Yes, j.rob, and don't forget K's words - http://www.mccannfiles.com/id59.html  

On the evening she went missing, before she went to bed, she said, 'Mummy I've had the best day ever. I'm having lots and lots of fun.'

To think that this poor child was probably not alive at the time she was alleged to have said the above.  All IMO.

Ladyinred wrote:Yes, j.rob, and don't forget K's words - http://www.mccannfiles.com/id59.html  

On the evening she went missing, before she went to bed, she said, 'Mummy I've had the best day ever. I'm having lots and lots of fun.'

To think that this poor child was probably not alive at the time she was alleged to have said the above.  All IMO.

Well if that day was the best day she had ever encountered, God bless her poor little soul.

Nina wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:Yes, j.rob, and don't forget K's words - http://www.mccannfiles.com/id59.html  
On the evening she went missing, before she went to bed, she said, 'Mummy I've had the best day ever. I'm having lots and lots of fun.'
To think that this poor child was probably not alive at the time she was alleged to have said the above.  All IMO.

Well if that day was the best day she had ever encountered, God bless her poor little soul.

Her first day in the Hands of Jesus, and the arms of Angels, looking on the Face of God ?

We are told that Paradise is better then what we normally have to put up with, are we not.

Quite. Perhaps KM has told the truth for once?

Someone just put this on facebook.  Think this pretty much speaks for itself.  That last photo is deffo photoshopped as Kate has this photo on her bedside table, and Amelie is definitely not sat beside her.  (sorry if this has already been put on, but I couldn't see it anywhere). 

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

I'm sure it's been said before that this is simply a cropped version of the original - nothing sinister (which makes a change), just to have the "last" image of Madeleine on her own.

Interesting juxtaposition of a crucifix or large cross to the right hand side of Madeleine.

No wonder the Portuguese police were absolutely gob-smacked when they looked at the photos, the crime scene and the bedside reading choices of the McCanns. 

Not to mention the lack of DNA. The fact that the McCanns gave police a towel which they claimed that Madeleine had used rather than clothes she had been wearing on 'the last day' (as shown by the McCann's in the alleged 'last photo') or a toothbrush, or a hair-brush or bedding. And the fact that Gerry went back to the UK in order to obtain items which would supposedly provide DNA samples. Plus those ridiculous 'last photos'.

What a load of old cobblers.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I'm sure it's been said before that this is simply a cropped version of the original - nothing sinister (which makes a change), just to have the "last" image of Madeleine on her own.

Except that it wasn't 'the last' image of Madeleine - as it wasn't taken on the day that the McCanns claim it was taken on. Since the 'original' is faked and photo-shopped, this can hardly be a genuine photo of Madeleine on 'the last day'.

When was 'the last' photo or image of Madeleine taken, I wonder? Was it boarding the steps of the plane or on the airport bus? Was that even Madeleine?

Why is this whole thing shrouded in so much mystery? It's ridiculous, as Gerry might say.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I'm sure it's been said before that this is simply a cropped version of the original - nothing sinister (which makes a change), just to have the "last" image of Madeleine on her own.

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

I don't know anything about photoshopping but I don't know how you can remove Amelie and Gerry's elbow and still leave the brick wall intact.