Further Analysis of the Last Photo

admin wrote:

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.

And, if you look at the brickwork behind Maddie, to both sides it's precisely the same photo. Not as though G and A moved away for a shot of Maddie alone.

I never progressed beyond taking photos with an old box camera.

All I know is that my cousin who took a digital photography course tells me that cutting someone or something out of a picture and then "repairing" the background is perfectly possible.

It's a doddle to remove someone from a photograph and rebuild the background.  Takes minutes.  I can do it and I'm an amateur.  The software does all the work for you.  you click on a piece of brick, click where you have removed the person, and the brick appears.  you just re-build the wall that way.

It is amazingly easy to do what has been done in the last photo: 

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

Then we need a photograph of the actual stone wall without anyone or anything there, just the wall.

Nina wrote:Then we need a photograph of the actual stone wall without anyone or anything there, just the wall.

Easily done.

1. Photo of brick wall and other background (probably just a photo of the pool with no people)
2. Photo of "Madeleine"
3. Photo of Amelie
4. Photo of Gerry

Steps:
1. Crop Madeleine out of photo #2 and paste her as a new layer into photo #1
2. Crop Amelie out of photo #3 and paste her as a new layer into photo #1
3. Crop Gerry out of photo #4 and paste him as a new layer into photo #1
4. Add extra strands of "hair" to "Madeleine" in the composite photo to hide the more obvious work
5. Save the new combined photo and add the Exif info to show a time and date, camera information, photographic detals, etc.

Of course this didn't happen.
Just using this as an illustration to show how easy it is.

Oh well, I am sure it is an entirely genuine photo of 'the last day'. And I am sure that everything that Kate and Gerry said is completely true.

 

Me too J.Rob - NOT!

I just don't think that there is anything strange about the solo version - regardless of when the original with Gerry and both girls was cooked up - which was done to make Madeleine the focus of attention.

Has there been any official statement as such. To say who actually did the photoshopping/cropping? And when precisely it was done?

Or just change 29/4/7 to 3/5/7
Occam's razor cuts very deeply, if you use it properly.

MRNOODLES wrote:Has there been any official statement as such. To say who actually did the photoshopping/cropping? And when precisely it was done?

I don't know. Did Kate mention it in her bewk? The little shrine she constructed on the mantle over the fireplace, containing the special photo of Madeleine all by herself, created from The Last Photo? Also featured in a church service, and on her dressing table in Portugal? I think for such an important picture which was so close to her heart, and which featured so prominently, she might have explained how it came to be? Madeleine on her own, with Amelie and Gerry's elbow cropped out? What clever person familiar with photo editing created this special picture for her?

So could this be a genuine photo of Madeleine taken at the Ocean Club on either Saturday or Sunday of that holiday, then? Were both those days sunny? If so, why was it not released immediately?

Because it showed Madeleine on her own and on a day early on in the holiday before anything *had happened*? Could this even have been taken when Madeleine and Kate allegedly went swimming in the pool on the Saturday afternoon? It looks as though the sun is quite high, though, so that might rule out Saturday as presumably they didn't arrive at the resort until later that day? I'm not sure.

Gerry added himself and Amelie to the shot - and pretended it had been taken by Kate on Thursday - to give the impression that the whole family were enjoying their lovely holiday with Madeleine alive and well and 'full of beans' right up to the time that Madeleine 'was stolen'. When, in reality, this is very, very far from what really happened that week, imo. 

I can't get this nagging suspicion out of my head that *something* happened to Madeleine early on in the holiday and that she could possibly have been saved, or at least stood a chance, with appropriate and timely (emergency) medical attention/care. 

But the TM did not want a can of worms revealed so they either tried to treat her themselves, and failed, or they didn't try because they didn't want awkward questions asked which they would have been if Madeleine had been taken to A+E in Portugal. And if the twins had been taken to hospital to be checked on the night of Thursday 3rd May (as they should have been, imo, that may well have provided some very important clues as well as also obviously checking they were okay). For instance, if, as Kate claims, they abductor drugged all three children possibly on two consecutive nights, toxicology tests on the twins would have revealed vital information.


So how come TM delayed this for 3 whole months? The answer is obvious, of course!

Another possibility is that Madeleine DID receive (emergency) medical treatment that week but TM were able to use their extensive medical networks, and other networks,  to cover this up. If the truth had emerged of what had happened to Madeleine and the treatment she had received, a can of worms might have been revealed with very awkward questions being asked about her and the twins. 

And while the McCanns were clearly able to lean on very high level support and protection for a time, it does appear that the plug was pulled after they were made arguidos in September 2007.

Kate in her book writes how she hoped Clarence would return as their family spokesperson after Justine moved on (this was on September 8th) but "the government had other ideas. They forbade him from any further involvement with us because of our arguido status......We felt the Government had abandoned us. It hadn't occurred to me that they wouldn't protect us......"

(Clarence does come back on board, but  resigns from the Civil Service in order to do this. His salary being taken care of by Brian.)

This might partly account for the 'pact' of silence. All the group are complicit in that what happened to Madeleine was potentially avoidable and potentially she 'could have been saved' - even if that means 'saved' from abduction, of course.

At the very least, there is willful negligence in leaving young children unattended. Accidents can happen in minutes and if there is no adult on hand to deal promptly and appropriately with the injured/ill/sedated child, the consequences can be dire. Just take a look at the statistics on accidents etc in the under 5 age group.

And it is my belief that this is the 'disaster' that Gerry spoke of. Accident/abuse/illness/adverse reaction to drug. Any or all of those things is perfectly possible and much more likely than 'stranger abduction'. 

Just imagine - if the whole group are prepared to admit they all left their children unattended every single night checking every now and then (or not) even when one of the children had chronic diarrhea, even when the route to the apartment was 'so scary' through a dark lonely car-park that at least one of the female Tapas didn't like checking on her own - just imagine how much worse the negligence must have been.

That's why they have all kept so quiet.

IMHO.

(Also of interest, in terms of who pulled the plug on them and when,  is what Kate writes on page 118 of her book. On Tuesday 8th May, Kate receives a call from Cherie Blair "in her final days as wife of the prime minister (her husband Tony would announce his resignation two days later...)....Doubtless I asked Cherie if there was anything the British government could offer the Portuguese in the way of resources to assist or expedite the search for Madeleine. It wasn't my intention to make her feel uncomfortable by asking this, and I'm sure I didn't. We were just so desperate I couldn't let the opportunity go by.")

Perhaps Cherie was not the McCanns biggest fan. No doubt her legal expertise sniffed out the eau de ordure emanating from the Mc apartment long before the sniffer dogs were unleashed.

This from the book. I have edited it very slightly, to make a point another contributor has alerted me to.

" Madeleine that lunchtime was wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday: a peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon – a small extravagance, perhaps, but I’d pictured how lovely she would look in them and I’d been right.

Madeleine and I met up with Sean, Amelie and Gerry and returned to our apartment for lunch. As the children were getting quite restless in we decided to get them out in the fresh air before the afternoon’s activities. We went to the play area,. We then sat round the toddler pool for a while, dipping our feet in, and I took . . . a photograph of Madeleine." (edited)

Is this not a description of 'normal" behaviour on the FIRST full day.
New clothes, with details of the retail outlet supplied in case we think . . ., children getting restless and wanting to explore, sitting round the pool, taking photos.
Completely normal activity, but only on the FIRST day.
in other words on the Sunday, when we know know the weather was good.
(They didn't arrive till 3pm on the Saturday, and had all the check-in and organising and lectures and stuff to go to.)
After that the weather was foul. It rained on the Wednesday, and was cold and damp, until very late on the Thursday night when it began to clear, and by Friday and Saturday it was OK again.

Has St Katherine told a version of the truth, but just got the date wrong ?

Why does she say a peach top when it was obviously pink? All that name- dropping about the "extravagance" of Gap and Monsoon and she can't even get the colour right. I think the Last Photo is completely phony anyway so pointless wondering what day it wasn't taken.

I am inclined to think that the day of the photo was Saturday, very soon after arrival. Perhaps not the last photo, but the first.

Perhaps Gerry took the (probably very excited) kids down to the pool to give Kate some space to unpack properly etc. I can imagine that he just swapped his jeans for a pair of shorts and the kids got out of their travelling clothes as it was quite warm and sunny.

The reasons I think Saturday more than Sunday are;

1. Gerry is in the same t-shirt as he was wearing on the Saturday.

2. Gerry's veins are pronounced on his hands - this is very common after a flight and hauling luggage around.

3. The weather. I realise that they apparently didn't arrive until around 3.30pm, but if they went straight down to the pool, this could still fit.

The difference in shadow angles and lengths at that time of day don't change very much - the differences are far more noticable towards either end of the day.
(I know this has been discussed at length here, there and everywhere, so don't want to turn this into another 'shadow' debate.)

In my mind, it fits. I know others do, and will, disagree.

Quite possibly taken on Saturday, or alternatively Sunday, but certainly not on the 3rd.

PeterMac is spot on, the activity being described is of an excited family doing normal things on holiday, weather permitting.

Where is the continuation of the family fun recorded? No photos on the beach, or days out, or in the crèche, or just playing with other friends children ? There were 2 digital cameras available. All these opportunities to capture good times, but nothing - how strange.

The much respected Hi-Deho confirmed on this forum several weeks ago that she has not found any evidence of MBM being around after Sunday 30th. Co-incidentally it would appear that from then on TM did not attend breakfast, they dined with the children in the apartment, the crèche records become questionable, and no resort CCTV footage can help.

IMO it is simply too far fetched that MBM being around after the 30th cannot be substantiated independently.

PeterM wrote:
(They didn't arrive till 3pm on the Saturday, and had all the check-in and organising and lectures and stuff to go to.)
-------------------------------------------------------------

And were TOLD about 'burglaries' in the 'area' at the induction 'meeting'

BUT they then proceeded to leave their apartment UNLOCKED, every night, whilst at the tapas restaurant, with their friends!

Still, as the 'family' have said, no 'valuables' were 'taken' the night Madeleine 'disappeared'.

Perhaps they'd have us believe, that the local burglars, gave the McCanns apartment, 'a miss', because there was nothing 'valuable' in it.

Except of course, the 'valuable' mobiles, watches, cameras (2), money, passports, keys, etc, which they didn't take with them to the tapas, so we WERE told by their paid spokesman, CM,...........oh and, of course, THREE DEFENCELESS CHILDREN, ('quite' VALUABLE to ANY NORMAL 'loving' parents, i'd suggest   ) ALL UNDER 4 YEARS OF AGE!

Would the McCanns have left the apartment UNLOCKED if they had won £5,000 cash on the local 'lottery' a day before, the 3rd May 2007, and that money was in their apartment, 'hidden' in a suitcase?  

The apartment only became 'unlocked' after the Mark Warner spokesman said the shutters had not been jemmied or got at in any way. Thinking of that, why did they tell the world such an obvious lie? Did an accomplice - who was supposed to mess up the shutters - let them down?

jeanmonroe wrote:PeterM wrote:
(They didn't arrive till 3pm on the Saturday, and had all the check-in and organising and lectures and stuff to go to.)
-------------------------------------------------------------

And were TOLD about 'burglaries' in the 'area' at the induction 'meeting'

IIRC the Nannies said the Mcs did not attend the Induction meeting. They did not get to meet the Mcs children there.
The first time they met Mcs' children was when they were brought into the Creche.

[

PeterMac wrote:This from the book.  I have edited it very slightly, to make a point another contributor has alerted me to.

" Madeleine that lunchtime was wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday: a peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon – a small extravagance, perhaps, but I’d pictured how lovely she would look in them and I’d been right.

Madeleine and I met up with Sean, Amelie and Gerry and returned to our apartment for lunch. As the children were getting quite restless in we decided to get them out in the fresh air before the afternoon’s activities. We went to the play area,. We then sat round the toddler pool for a while, dipping our feet in, and I took . . . a photograph of Madeleine."   (edited)

Is this not a description of 'normal" behaviour on the FIRST full day.
New clothes, with details of the retail outlet supplied in case we think . . ., children getting restless and wanting to explore, sitting round the pool, taking photos.
Completely normal activity, but only on the FIRST day.
in other words on the Sunday, when we know know the weather was good.
(They didn't arrive till 3pm on the Saturday, and had all the check-in and organising and lectures and stuff to go to.)
After that the weather was foul.  It rained on the Wednesday, and was cold and damp, until very late on the Thursday night when it began to clear, and by Friday and Saturday it was OK again.

Has St Katherine told a version of the truth, but just got the date wrong ?

It sounds very likely that they have used a valid description of the first days activities. I think they would be advised to use as much truthful detail as possible otherwise it would all sound very contrived.  Very good spot..

And what 4 year old with new holiday clothes would not want to wear them on the first day.

aiyoyo wrote

''
IIRC the Nannies said the Mcs did not attend the Induction meeting. They did not get to meet the Mcs children there.
The first time they met Mcs' children was when they were brought into the Creche.''


I think this has been discussed before, but don't creche records show that the time frame for the last photo/ attendance at creche to be very very tight?

Also IIRC Madeleine goes to the creche at 2.30 on Sunday and the twins five minutes later?

Although in her book, km tells us they did go to the introduction as that was when they booked them into the crèche? Off topic but in the book she also states that she envied the paynes having a view of the ocean, but didn't make much of it because of the balcony and the kids! Iirc, there was indeed a concern as their balcony also had a big drop to the ground below.
IMO

Just a quickie... Ref the endless discussion of how the reflection of pool edge / water in GMs glasses proves it was 'shopped.... Here's a picture I took in my garden a while back. I happened to look at it today and was struck by the apparent impossibility of the reflection of the deck edge on the plastic of the guitar pickguard. The reflection of the wooden boards is rotated 90 degrees like GM's 'pool edge' yet it seems to make no sense.

If that was in a 'suspect' picture related to this case, I'll bet nobody could explain it either. But there you have it.

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

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Just a quickie... Ref the endless discussion of how the reflection of pool edge / water in GMs glasses proves it was 'shopped.... Here's a picture I took in my garden a while back. I happened to look at it today and was struck by the apparent impossibility of the reflection of the deck edge on the plastic of the guitar pickguard. The reflection of the wooden boards is rotated 90 degrees like GM's 'pool edge' yet it seems to make no sense.

If that was in a 'suspect' picture related to this case, I'll bet nobody could explain it either. But there you have it.

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

"I'll bet nobody could explain it either"

I'll 'have a go' at 'explaining' it............... .......................er, PHOTOSHOPPED!