Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by Hicks 04.11.14 23:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
Hicks wrote:Looking back through this thread I came across the high resolution last photo ( first few pages)...If you magnify it looks like Amelie and Madeleine are actually sat on the edge of the pool, however to my mind Gerry does seem to float. Look at his waist, the torso doesn't fit the waist...if you see what I mean.

I agreed a little earlier this evening that it does look as though Gerry McCann is floating, i.e. detached from the poolside. Against that, we have photographers who assure us that this is just an impression that we have - from the way a camera photograph tries, not always succesfully, to reproduce and reflect reality.

But a still more important point is the one I referred to earlier, and as far as I can see it hasn't been answered by any of those who insist that the 'Last Photo' is photoshopped - namely the problem of the 100% consistent shadows.

We simply cannot get away from what our own eyes see and what the photographic experts confirm: the sun was very high, and the shadows are all of short and consistent length - effectively proving that the three individuals in the picture were snapped on the same occasion.

I would genuinely like to see you or any other 'photoshpping advocate' address this very crucial observation.

@Tony, a few pages back you referred to me as a he. Just to correct you, I am a she.

I am sorry, I will try to remember

@ canada12

You wrote: "Can I make it clear that I completely support the theory that the EXIF has been altered and that the photo was taken earlier in the holiday? I'm sorry if the photoshopping arguments have been distracting from that. I just don't see the two arguments as being mutually exclusive. Rather, I see them as being wholly supportive of the argument that the photo is not accurate, it doesn't depict the truth, and it was created in order to try and prove that both Madeleine and Gerry were present at a certain time on a certain day in a certain place".

REPLY: Thank you for that, and you are right in one respect, but if I may say so IMO wrong in another.

Agreed that there is unanimity on this thread between the 'photoshoppers' and the 'earlier-in-the-week-but genuine' brigade that the 'Last Photo' is not what it purports to be. And you are dead right that this is an important area of agreement.

However, in every aspect of this mysterious case, it's important to get to the truth.

And there is a truth to be discovered about this 'Last Photo'.

Either it has been photoshopped, or it has not.

Either it has been taken at 2.29pm on 3 May 2007, or it has not.

If it wasn't taken at 2.29pm on 3 May, then when was it taken?

And we can really narrow the debate down to three very specific alternatives:

1. It is a genuine photograph taken, just as the McCanns claim, at 2.29pm on 3 May - OR

2. It is a genuine photograph taken (as per the weather records) on Sunday 29th or Monday 30th - OR

3. It is a mish-mashed mess of all sorts of bits of photoshopping here and there, the most popular versions of this theory being: 'Gerry has been photoshopped in' or 'Madeleine has been photoshopped in'.

In the absence of proof, let us continue to accumulate and analyse the evidence as to which one of these three is correct.

1.

Tony, I have no expertise when it comes to photography. I am the one who chops heads off when taking photos. If experts say that this image is genuine then I take that on board.
As I know next to nothing about photo shopping, I don't understand what it possible and what is not regarding things like shadows.

I always question because it is in my nature I'm afraid. The thing is I cannot reconcile the two images of Madeleine. The tennis photo and the 'supposed' last photo. Why would Madeleine seem younger in the last photo? This is what I struggle with.

by sazza 04.11.14 23:33

aquila wrote:
sazza wrote:
juliet wrote:It is a mish-mashed mess of photoshopping. Like the playground photo.
No no no. I am not having that. Mr Bennett is correct in what he is saying.
Is it panto evening on the forum?

sazza appears, talks about Blacksmith and in his/her second post talks about the last photo?

Sorry aquila. I just agree with Mr Bennett re: the last photo and I said it was a shame that Mr Bennett is being spoken about in that way by Mr Blacksmith.

by juliet 04.11.14 23:40

Who are these "experts" who tell TB and PeterMac that there is no evidence of photoshopping? I can equally claim experts who say the photos scream anomalies and blatant manipulation. Can anyone tell why in the world - as Hicks says - pool Madeleine bears so little resemblance to tennis Madeleine. They look like two different girls. One young and healthy and looked after; the other marked, unkempt, skinny and a year or so older.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.11.14 23:52

Hicks wrote:

Tony, I have no expertise when it comes to photography. I am the one who chops heads off when taking photos. If experts say that this image is genuine then I take that on board. As I know next to nothing about photo shopping, I don't understand what it possible and what is not regarding things like shadows.

Noted. All kinds of effects appear on photographs, because of what the photographer takes, the way he takes the picture, the focus and other settings he uses, othe camera and the film he uses, the quality of the lighting at the time and so on and so forth. We can easily leap to wrong conclusions about what we see on a photograph.

I always question because it is in my nature I'm afraid.

And mine. I have absolutely no problem with anyone who genuinely challenges anything I say or anyone else says on the forum so long as the motive for the challenge is to get at the truth. Likewise I will query what people say or believe about something if I think the evidence for their belief is lacking.

The thing is I cannot reconcile the two images of Madeleine. The tennis photo and the 'supposed' last photo. Why would Madeleine seem younger in the last photo? This is what I struggle with.

You may have missed the point I made up the thread on this very issue earlier tonight, in answer to juliet IIRC. I suggest that the way Madeleine appears on the Last Photo is fully consistent with the appearance of her on all other photos...EXCEPT the tennis balls photo.

That's the one that I really think is out of sync with all the others. I hope that partly answers your query. But that's a matter for another thread. I think there's even mystery about who took that photo, isn't there?

by rustyjames 04.11.14 23:57

I've posted a number of times that I can't see any photoshopping of the last photo. I've spent hours and hours, going back to the 3A's days, desperately trying to find some internal inconsistency that can't be explained, as the late appearance of the photo and the accompanying seemingly misdirection story of drawing attention to the time seemed suspicious. It frustrated me that I couldn't find anything and I hated posting on a forum to defend it so eventually gave up.

If it is photoshopped then it is a masterpiece - getting amongst many other things every shadow spot on and adding things like the little drops of water that seem to have been kicked up.

On the other hand following Occam's razor principle, a simple adjusted date fits nicely along with doubts about the weather IMO.

by Liz Eagles 04.11.14 23:57

sazza wrote:
aquila wrote:
sazza wrote:
juliet wrote:It is a mish-mashed mess of photoshopping. Like the playground photo.
No no no. I am not having that. Mr Bennett is correct in what he is saying.
Is it panto evening on the forum?

sazza appears, talks about Blacksmith and in his/her second post talks about the last photo?
Sorry aquila. I just agree with Mr Bennett re: the last photo and I said it was a shame that Mr Bennett is being spoken about in that way by Mr Blacksmith.

I give up. I truly give up. I'm beaten. I'm sick of it all. I'm sick of the bitching, I'm sick of the hounding, I'm sick of the lack of honesty and commitment to the disappearance of a little girl who has been exploited beyond belief by bastards who have made millions out of her and have yet to find out what happened to her.

I'm sick of it.

I'm sick of trolls. I'm sick of people with agendas. I'm sick of forum wars.

I'm sick of people who tweet shite about others when supposedly their focus is Madeleine McCann.

I'm sick to my stomach at the demise of Brenda Leyland.

I'm sick of Jim Gamble - please never let him be in a position of power and please have him investigated if he is.

I'm sick of the media who exploit this little girl instead of turning their backs on any press releases in a unified silence against super-inaudibles.

I'm sick of Madeleine's parents. I never want to see their faces again.

I'm sick of people like Clarence Mitchell.

I'm sick of it all.

Now, how I feel is probably how a lot of people feel.

Rant over then.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.14 0:17

juliet wrote:Who are these "experts" who tell TB and PeterMac that there is no evidence of photoshopping? I can equally claim experts who say the photos scream anomalies and blatant manipulation.

Can anyone tell why in the world - as Hicks says - pool Madeleine bears so little resemblance to tennis Madeleine. They look like two different girls. One young and healthy and looked after; the other marked, unkempt, skinny and a year or so older.

@ juliet I patiently answered your point about the comparison between Last Photo and the Tennis Balls Photo both up the thread and again in answer to Hicks, just above.

Please do me the courtesy at least of carefully looking at the two posts I have made on that very subject.

Now, as to the identity of the two experts, I cannot reveal them as both gave their opinions to PeterMac on the strict understanding that they were doing so in confidence.

However, I am going to quote one sentence from one of the two experts PeterMac consulted, in order to aid and inform discussion here about this very crucial subject. The expert whose sentence I am going to quote is a noted and respected senior University academic who specialises in photographic analysis.

This is what s/he said on examining the Last Photo:

QUOTE

"I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent -- they are".

UNQUOTE

That sentence alone is not conclusive. There is however more that PeterMac may be able to share in due course.

But let no-one doubt that PeterMac has gone to two thoroughly reputable and acknowledged experts in this field.

And unless anyone can produce a forensic analysis to show that 'the lighting and the shadows on the people and background' are not consistent, that ought to settle the argument on that point.

And as I said before, yoiu simply cannot fake consistent shadow lengths.

by canada12 05.11.14 0:25

Tony Bennett wrote:And as I said before, yoiu simply cannot fake consistent shadow lengths.

Actually it's pretty simple to create and manipulate shadows in Photoshop.

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

by LombardySkeptik 05.11.14 1:08

Putting aside momentarily Q and A's RE photo-shopping etc.......

........Two other aspects of this 'last photo' are worth considering - and do feel free to enlighten me if I have missed the sensible answers to these

1. was this the only version delivered -- as you know most folk with digital cameras snap 2 or 3 in a pose (especially as there seem so few family snaps)

2. If i am correct - there was no mention of taking a photo at this time frame in the initial PJ interviews in May -- this would seem to me to be odd (especially as they took so few photographs that week)

It does make me think that the 'timing' of this photo was yet to be decided

by Guest 05.11.14 4:57

[quote="BlueBag"][quote="BlueBag"][quote="dantezebu"]There are already differing opinions on the last photo.
Floating leaf has made a very valid observation.
The two girls in the photos have similar pink tops, similar white hats and in a remarkably similar pose.
But the hair length is not.
[b]The one with short hair is part of a KM Maddie shrine.[/b][/quote]
No it isn't.

Show us a crop from the photo in the video and not the deliberate murk in the floating leaf nonsense.[/quote]

Maybe you need some help?

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

So.. whaddya say?[/quote

A question, off topic I'm afraid: has 'The Urn' been gone over (what is it, have we seen its equal, something similar; marking, make, somewhere)? Can you direct me to its analysis?

by missbeetle 05.11.14 5:05

Hey Portia -

A good thread to read about the Rothley home shrine to Madeleine is "What's in the urn on your mantelpiece?".

If you type "mantelpiece" into search you should get it.

There is another recent discussion on the urn in the "Shrines and the McCanns" thread.

by Guest 05.11.14 5:15

[quote="missbeetle"]Hey Portia -

A good thread to read about the Rothley home shrine to Madeleine is "What's in the urn on your mantelpiece?".

If you type "mantelpiece" into search you should get it.

There is another recent discussion on the urn in the "Shrines and the McCanns" thread.[/quote]

:flower: Thank you

by Atomic Peanut 05.11.14 8:01

We are now being offered two main possibilities, either that the date (and maybe time) of the last photo were altered; or that it has been photoshopped. If you believe that the last photo isn't what it's claimed to be (though that is not necessarily my own view), BOTH may be true. The Author, pioneer of last photo discussions, felt that the time of 2.29pm could be correct in terms of the sun's lateral position but that the sun wasn't high enough to cast those shadows. However, if the picture was photoshopped, the base photograph could have been taken as late as 20th May, when the sun was 4 degrees higher, hence making the shadows more plausible

I have been taken to task for placing too much faith in the magazine article mentioning the Boyds. I haven't said I unconditionally believe every aspect of the article, in fact it isn't well written and it is ambigious regarding the date. When I deduced that they were referring to last photo day, I was told that I had got that wrong and it was 2nd May. However it can't have been 2nd May because it was too wet in the morning and then cloudy, definitely not a good lunchtime for the pool. The main bone of contention is that they have M wearing different clothes from the last photo

I have been accused of trying to prove that the last photo was taken at 2.29pm on 3rd May but I have done no such thing. I have pointed out that there is a possibility that it was taken then, and TB and PeterM have since agreed that there is chance of that, albeit (in their opinion) a smaller chance than 28th/29th April. Therefore it would be wrong to eliminate 3rd May from your deductions - as long as a possibility remains, it must be treated as just that. To concentrate solely on the earlier dates could distract you from what actually happened

In my opinion, if they were at the pool at 2.29pm on 3rd May, the Boyds may be the only people in the world who know whether or not the last photo is real and that it was taken at the stated time, so it would be careless to write off their contribution. It makes you wonder why 7 years has been spent debating the photo when there are some people on this earth who may actually know for sure!

by Guest 05.11.14 8:07

BlueBag wrote:So.. lets' cut to the chase...

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

THIS IS A LIE!!!!

Apologies accepted,

Also from the video.

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

Here: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xmy3y7_exclusive-new-video-madeleine-mccann-case_news

Someone in the first picture cherry picked a frame where due to artifacts of a low res video the hair appears shorter for a fraction.

That is dishonest and done with the intention of disruption.

by Smokeandmirrors 05.11.14 8:36

Portia wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
dantezebu wrote:There are already differing opinions on the last photo.
Floating leaf has made a very valid observation.
The two girls in the photos have similar pink tops, similar white hats and in a remarkably similar pose.
But the hair length is not.
The one with short hair is part of a KM Maddie shrine.
No it isn't.

Show us a crop from the photo in the video and not the deliberate murk in the floating leaf nonsense.

Maybe you need some help?

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

So.. whaddya say?=#ff3333]A question, off topic I'm afraid: has 'The Urn' been gone over (what is it, have we seen its equal, something similar; marking, make, somewhere)? Can you direct me to its analysis?

Hi Portia, it is not an urn but a money box, available in many gift shops with varying painted patterns. I've seen many of them.
They are called Terramundi

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

Hope this clears it up

by Guest 05.11.14 8:38

BTW, the picture I just posted is a more honest representation of the video.

It's the same picture we all know in the video.

Anyone who watched the video would see that.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.14 8:55

BlueBag wrote:

Someone in the first picture cherry picked a frame where due to artifacts of a low res video the hair appears shorter for a fraction.

That is dishonest and done with the intention of disruption.

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

by **PeterMac** 05.11.14 8:56

Atomic Peanut wrote:SNIPPED and PeterM have since agreed that there is chance of that, albeit (in their opinion) a smaller chance than 28th/29th April. !

It is almost impossible to prove a negative. There is therefore a chance, though the preponderance of evidence makes that chance almost infinitesimally small.

by Doug D 05.11.14 9:11

Thank you BlueBag, for your technical yet understandable explanation.

If only we had access to the unadulterated photo evidence that the PJ obtained in the first few days, from all sorts of people, with full times and dates, everything would be so simple.

A full photographic timeline for the whole week, with indisputable weather evidence, I suspect would destroy, not just highlight anomalies in, many of the statements. Even the earlier CCTV shots from the Paraiso that afternoon would help.

(From the TM side this could 'prove their innocence', so why hasn't it been done? - rhetorical!)

It would be even more helpful if the photos that CEOP creamed off to Southampton, plus the video camera shots, were to enter the fray.

Yet here we are with OG still chasing & wanting to interview more 'burgalators"

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.14 9:26

Doug D wrote:Thank you BlueBag, for your technical yet understandable explanation.

If only we had access to the unadulterated photo evidence that the PJ obtained in the first few days, from all sorts of people, with full times and dates, everything would be so simple.

And who did have access to the undulterated photo evidence, Doug D?

Unfortunately, contrary to your assertion that the PJ had the unadulterated photo evidence in the early days, the evidence we have is that at least FIVE other very important people had access to the McCanns' cameras (maybe also the Paynes' - I am not sure about that) during those all important first few days:

1. Dr Gerald McCann

2. Dr Kate McCann

3. Alex Woolfall from Bell Pottinger

4. Michael Wright, and...

...most mysterious and inexplicable at all...

5. ...on the evening of Tuesday, 8th May - just 120 hours after Madeleine's reported disappearance, one of the McCanns' cameras ended up being personally delivered to the private home of a Hampshire Police Officer - apparently an expert in digital cameras.

How was it, then, that this expert Hampshire Police Officer was only able to extract grainy black-and-white photos from that camera's memory card? - the ones we can now see in the released PJ files

by Smokeandmirrors 05.11.14 9:37

I think the most important factor when considering this photo is the analysis of the weather conditions at the time the photo was supposed to have been taken. The police can work this out for themselves, and I'd be surprised if they hadn't done so, albeit due to a prompting from evidence submitted by Peter.

If they know that the time/date claimed is a lie, and they have not as a consequence decided to investigate the McCanns as suspects, then IMO it stands as proof of a total whitewash. That is all I have to say on the last photo.

by **PeterMac** 05.11.14 9:38

And Russell was handed ONE of the cameras, from which the younger looking poster photo was apparently extracted and printed by Amy T
But obviously no one was handed the all important Canon Powershot A620, which lay unnoticed and unremarked on the dining table, then got whooshed, only to reappear on St Katherine's lap in the police station on 10th for her to play with, whilst Gerry was finishing his statement saying that they (Sorry HE ! important difference) had no more photos in HIS possession.

"Meanwhile not thirty feet away . . ."

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.14 9:58

Smokeandmirrors wrote:I think the most important factor when considering this photo is the analysis of the weather conditions at the time the photo was supposed to have been taken. The police can work this out for themselves, and I'd be surprised if they hadn't done so, albeit due to a prompting from evidence submitted by Peter.

If they know that the time/date claimed is a lie, and they have not as a consequence decided to investigate the McCanns as suspects, then IMO it stands as proof of a total whitewash. That is all I have to say on the last photo.

Indeed so, Smokeandmirrors.

But it would also stand as powerful evidence that Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood had committed the very serious criminal offence of perverting the course of justice.

Here is an extract from the Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on what constitutes perverting the course of justice:

The Offence

3. Perverting the course of justice is a serious offence. It can only be tried on indictment and carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. The offence is committed where a person:

does an act (a positive act or series of acts is required; mere inaction is insufficient)
which has a tendency to pervert and
which is intended to pervert
the course of public justice.

4. The course of justice includes the police investigation of a possible crime (it is not necessary for legal proceedings to have begun). A false allegation which risks the arrest or wrongful conviction of an innocent person is enough. The word pervert can mean 'alter' but the behaviour does not have to go that far - any act that interferes with an investigation or causes it to head in the wrong direction may tend to pervert the course of justice. All the prosecution needs to prove is that there is a possibility that what the suspect has done "without more" might lead to a wrongful consequence, such as the arrest of an innocent person (Murray (1982) 75 Cr. App. R. 58).

5. Intention is not the same as motive. (However, the motive of the suspect is likely to be important if the public interest stage is reached.) The prosecution must prove an intention either to pervert the course of justice or to do something which, if achieved, would pervert the course of justice. All that is necessary is proof of knowledge of all the circumstances, and the intentional doing of an act which has a tendency, when objectively viewed, to pervert the course of justice.

++++++++++++++++++++++

I believe that the maximum term for perverting the course of justice is...

LIFE IMPRISONMENT

+++++++++++

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

+++++++++++

by Doug D 05.11.14 10:07

TB:

‘How was it, then, that this expert Hampshire Police Officer was only able to extract grainy black-and-white photos from that camera's memory card? - the ones we can now see in the released PJ files’

I have always assumed (wrongly?) that the foggy photos in the files were deliberately posted in that manner to protect privacy and that ‘proper’ copies were available to the PJ.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.11.14 10:51

Doug D wrote:TB:

‘How was it, then, that this expert Hampshire Police Officer was only able to extract grainy black-and-white photos from that camera's memory card? - the ones we can now see in the released PJ files’

I have always assumed (wrongly?) that the foggy photos in the files were deliberately posted in that manner to protect privacy and that ‘proper’ copies were available to the PJ.

My understanding (and it could be wrong) is that the Hampshire Police Officer only ever produced those grainy/foggy black-and-white images.

If PeterMac is looking in on this thread and sees your post, he might be able to shed further light on this.

The prime issue for me anyway in this is why and how they were ever delivered to this individual anyway - and did this action have the blessing of Dr Goncalo Amaral?

Given what we now know about the very early involvement in this case of...

* the government's top Media Monitoring officer, Clarence Mitchell
* MI5
* the government-backed Control Risks Group
* a top team of police and high-ranking government officials under the chairmanship of Leicestershire Police convened as early as 8 May,
* Chancellor of the Exchequer Gorodn Brown and
* Special Branch

...there is at the very least a suspicion about why such important evidence was flown to the private home of this police officer within 120 hours of Madeleine's reported disappearance