Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.14 10:20

BlueBag wrote:

End of story.

bobbin wrote::

For you perhaps, but then shoe-horning isn't everyone's modus operandi when it comes to serious forensic analysis.

REPLY: The only ‘serious forensic analysis’ that we have available on this thread - from true professionals in the field - is that given by the two acknowledged experts on photographs and photoshopping etc. whom PeterMac consulted some months back. I have reproduced one sentence from the report of one of those two experts, a senior, well-respected academic. He (and the other) expert are both of the view that there is no evidence of photoshopping on the ‘Last Photo’. The senior academic has stated that he has carried out a forensic analysis of the shadows in particular, and has found that all the shadow lengths and positions are consistent with each other. As is clear from this thread, the majority of posters on it, including e.g. myself, BlueBag and of course PeterMac, see no reason to depart from this view.

Making the wrong facts fit into an investigation results in the wrong person being convicted, and that has very serious consequences.

REPLY: Agreed that this can happen.

It's all very well looking at this as a school debating society challenge, to see which side wins the argument,

REPLY: Who looks at this as a ‘school debating challenge?. No-one on this thread, so far as I can see

but in the real world, police investigations and forensic analysis have life affecting consequences.

REPLY: Agreed, but this thread is about the real world, and about a real investigation, and possibly about a real cover-up.

It is interesting nevertheless to have watched the squirming and silly arguments given on this discussion and as I said earlier, I am glad you are not helping me with my 3000 piece jigsaw puzzle where an astute eye is essential and any cheating to make the wrong bit fit is just cheating oneself.

REPLY: I don’t see ‘squirming’, ‘silly arguments’ or ‘cheating’ on this thread - except perhaps from ‘Atomic Peanut’

As long as this doesn't result in the life-time imprisonment of the wrong person, shoe-horning is neither here nor there, but if it were you facing a life sentence then I think you'd be thinking differently about a casual shoe-horn "oversight".

REPLY: The ‘shoe-horning’ referred to here is basically an allegation that posters on this thread are trying to prove that the ‘Last Photo’ is not photoshopped, when the evidence (these posters say) shows that it was photoshopped. But another way of looking at this debate is that there are some posters, like yourself, bobbin, that have a long-held view that the Last Photo has been photoshopped, when expert evidence suggests that it is a genuine photo (but maybe with the date and time stamp altered)

If ignoring any photo shopping,

REPLY: You have not proved that the Last Photo is photoshopped, nor have you prayed in aid any expert professional opinion that it is has been

and accepting a faked photo as 'credible',

REPLY: You say the Last Photo is faked; two top experts what have acrfreid out forensic analysis of it say it isn’t

there is a risk that the investigation will look away from the incriminating data and place the blame for Maddie's disappearance on some other person who is not actually guilty.

REPLY: This is very puzzling remark. Those like PeterMac who say this is a genuine photo probably taken on Sunday 29^th or Monday 30^th are clearly pointing a finger in a certain direction - just as you point your finger in the very same direction with your claims that the photo has been photoshopped. Both views ‘incriminate’ the same people, don’t they

This is not sport, this is serious but thankfully it is not in the forum members' hands to determine the police investigation and we can only hope that the police investigators themselves are constituted of a group of un-corrupted police and that the case when it comes to court will also be met by an un-corrupted judge.

REPLY: The likelihood that this case will ever come to court is IMO remote. Is there evidence that these investigations - both the official ones and the McCanns’ private one - have been ‘uncorrupted’? Not since 2 October 2007 when Dr Goncalo Amaral was removed from the investigation, I would argue

juliet wrote:

I do mistrust this sudden

REPLY: It’s not in the least ‘sudden’. PeterMac has been discussing this on the forum for months

and very forceful effort

REPLY: Yes - because the expert evidence seems to favour our view that the Last Photo is a genuine photo

by a tiny minority

REPLY: Come, come. The view that the Last Photo is probably genuine (but taken on another date) is held by a majority of posters on this thread

to present the Last Photo as genuine and unfaked apart from the date. It seems to have come from nowhere.

REPLY: See above

It doesn't help when TB and Bluebag try to shut down all debate –

REPLY: Nearly 100 pages of this thread and 1,000 views and people are trying ‘to shut the debate down’? All I see is views robustly put forward

and even demand that people ignore the evidence of their own eyes.

REPLY: Unless you have some acknowledged expertise or experience in the field of photoshopping, you are putting your amateur, untrained eye above the views of top experts, a dangerous thing to do. All kinds of srtange

bobbin wrote:

I second your views entirely.

Furthermore, it would pay to look at the 'constants' in the photo and compare the people placed into the photo with the constants.

By that I mean the shadow of the dandelion at the base of the wall to our right of Maddie, to the shadows of the rocks in the wall itself, to the angles of the shadows of the broken bark on the palm tree and to the shadow cast by the palm tree itself and the angles of the light that is shining on its main trunk.

These things are background and to my clear view, the shadows dictated by the constants dictate also a template for calculating the angle of the sun in terms of height in the sky (the vertical plane) and the horizontal plane (directionally be it from the North, East, South, West or any angle between).

REPLY: Bear in mind that a top academic has carried out a full forensic analysis of these shadows and finds them of consistent length and direction with no fakery; a second expert agrees with him

In three dimensional measurement, the very silly pictures above with a face and a line are just 'two dimensional' and show nothing of the triangulation required to properly depict what is happening in terms of 3 dimensional imaging and calculation.

REPLY: You make a valid point by referring (I assume) to the fact that one must take into account a number of factors; as far as I can see, the factors that must be taken into account are these:

1)    The height of the sun when the photo was taken

2)    The direction of the sun (in this case somewhere behind the individuals in the picture, and

3)    The posture of the individuals (in this case, Gerry leaning forwards, his two children leaning back, their right arms out of view.

I have every reason to believe that the two experts PeterMac consulted took all these (and may be others) into account when giving their written expert opinions).

Look at the dandelion's shadow and tell me how Gerry's nose reaches down to his chin, stops and then becomes a great mass of shadow completely out of sync with the dandelion shadow.

Next, look at the shadow on Gerry's left sleeve where it joins his left arm, and then the shadow of the black curled string at the front of his shorts.

These do not correlate with the possibility of a long shadow down his chest which would indicate a sun position from above his head and somewhat behind, which would have to indicate his sitting at a different part of the pool, if at the pool at all, since the sun in the northern hemisphere is never able to shine from a northerly direction.

Gerry's position, relative to the pool, where the tree is in a northerly position relative to the pool, would indicate that the sun must approach his face from a non-northerly position yet his shadow indicates sun emanating from somewhat above and BEHIND.

Not consistent with the known laws of physics, long shirt shadow as we see it, not possible, therefore photo-shopping and faking.

REPLY: Whilst this all sounds quite plausible on the surface, I don’t buy it. IMO you put far too much weight on your interpretation of the shadow of a tiny dandelion and the shadow of a bit of black curled string on Gerry’s shorts. I have seen all the allegations of photoshopping of this photo, many of them plausible on the surface, but not IMO anything like persuasive.

I will finish with an example of what I mean, namely a YouTube video which appears on Anna Andress’s titled: ‘Proof of fake: Last Photo by Mccann’s’, uploaded by ‘provo’, link here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In this video, we are told, basically, that the photo ‘must be a fake’ for two main reasons:

1. There is no shadow on the ground from Gerry’s left elbow

2. There is a photoshopped image of Madeleine on her own; this shows that the Last Photo itself has been photoshopped.

Although ‘provo’ has laboured for 10 minutes to try to prove that the ‘Last Photo’ has been photoshopped, there are two simple answers to his theory, and one admission he makes on the video.

In answer to point 1 above, I suggest that the shadow of Gerry’s elbow would be found on the backs of Amelie and Madeleine.

In answer to point 2, of course the photo of Madeleine on her own, with the blurring of the rocks behind her, has been photoshopped - that much is crystal clear. That in no way demonstrates that the Last Photo itself is faked.

Finally, ‘provo’ makes a very important admission at about 3 mins 33 secs into the film.

He places his pencil over the three individuals and makes this clear statement:

“The shadows all go the same way”.

That is as clear an admission as you could possibly hope for that all three individuals were photographed at exactly the same time and place - and that none of them have been ‘photoshopped in’.

Moreover, on this crucial point, ‘provo’ has shown himself to be in complete agreement with PeterMac’s two experts.

by Guest 09.11.14 10:25

juliet wrote:If you can't be bothered to even try to back up your claims Bluebag, at least stop snarling at everyone who points out the facts.

I'm waiting for proof that the shadows are impossible.

Feel free.

by Guest 09.11.14 10:28

Atomic Peanut wrote:I set this puzzle two days ago and, unsurprisingly, nobody has managed to solve it

I don't think we should be dancing around to your tune any more. You are a wind up merchant.

The shoe should be on the other foot.

You are making the claim that the shadows are impossible.

Please provide the proof with diagrams. Sun angles, clothing and body postures.

If you can't then please desist.

by Guest 09.11.14 10:33

joyce1938 wrote:My question is ,, Is too much being made of all this photo stuff ,does it take away from anything else ,so many half truths etc .

I agree we are missing the major point.

I don't know if the picture is photoshopped or not. But it really doesn't matter if it can be proved that the date has been altered. That the picture is such a controversy of bitter dispute regarding the minutiae of photoshopping suits the McCanns - particularly if it turns out it isn't shopped, as the accusers lose credibility and the moral high-ground immediately.

But it matters not one jot if that date has been inserted as a false date. Prove that - and it's conceivably looking more likely that proving this would be easier than proving photoshopping - and they're in a corner. A very dark one with solid walls.

In my opinion.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.14 10:34

Nereid wrote:
BlueBag wrote:A picture of Lagos at 22.01 on 3rd May 2007

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

That's what the EXIF says.

So it must be true.

I can't see EXIF data there. But if it says 22.01 on 3rd of May, it does seem that the camera settings were wrong, hence the time on the EXIF being out of whack.

The shadows on the picture I posted tallies with the 12.53 time. But yes there is a chance that the EXIF is wrong.

But that also means that the 'weather' pictures PeterMac used in his report (pages 11 and 12) could all have the wrong dates/times. They're also from Flickr you see.

So you have now singlehandedly destroyed the credibility of parts of PeterMac's report.

Well done!

With all due respect to you, Nereid, this is nonsense.

BlueBag has single-handedly destroyed the credibilty of the time of the Lagos photo - a good bit of research.

I agree with you that some of the weather pictures produced by PeterMac could be wrong - no doubt he will be able to help us with that in due course.

But because one photo appears to have the wrong date or time, that doesn't prove that any of PeterMac's photos have the wrong date or time.

Moreover, PeterMac has amassed a mass of weather data for that week - temperatures, humidity, cloud cover, wind, sunshine etc. - from which we can be certain of all the following:

1. 3 May was cooler than 29 or 30 April

2. 3 May was much cloudier than 29 or 30 April.

This doesn't prove that the Last Photo was taken on 29 or 30 April.

But it does make it much more likely

by Guest 09.11.14 10:37

Thanks Tony,

My point about EXIF data is that it's unreliable without verification.

That is what I demonstrated with pictures on Flickr.

by plebgate 09.11.14 10:41

Exactly, Two experts have given a written and detailed report about The Last Photo ( how many more times), who would a judge listen to, two experts prepared to given WRITTEN testimony or the view of several amateur posters on a forum?

This was said many pages back, but apparently went unread.

by Nereid 09.11.14 10:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
Nereid wrote:
BlueBag wrote:A picture of Lagos at 22.01 on 3rd May 2007

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

That's what the EXIF says.

So it must be true.

I can't see EXIF data there. But if it says 22.01 on 3rd of May, it does seem that the camera settings were wrong, hence the time on the EXIF being out of whack.

The shadows on the picture I posted tallies with the 12.53 time. But yes there is a chance that the EXIF is wrong.

But that also means that the 'weather' pictures PeterMac used in his report (pages 11 and 12) could all have the wrong dates/times. They're also from Flickr you see.

So you have now singlehandedly destroyed the credibility of parts of PeterMac's report.

Well done!
With all due respect to you, Nereid, this is nonsense.

BlueBag has single-handedly destroyed the credibilty of the time of the Lagos photo - a good bit of research.

I agree with you that some of the weather pictures produced by PeterMac could be wrong - no doubt he will be able to help us with that in due course.

But because one photo appears to have the wrong date or time, that doesn't prove that any of PeterMac's photos have the wrong date or time.

Moreover, PeterMac has amassed a mass of weather data for that week - temperatures, humidity, cloud cover, wind, sunshine etc. - from which we can be certain of all the following:

1. 3 May was cooler than 29 or 30 April

2. 3 May was much cloudier than 29 or 30 April.

This doesn't prove that the Last Photo was taken on 29 or 30 April.

But it does make it much more likely

"BlueBag has single-handedly destroyed the credibilty of the time of the Lagos photo - a good bit of research."

Yes, and he did this to say that the picture I posted might have the wrong EXIF data. And I agree with that of course, even though the shadows tally with a 12.53 time.

It is likely that the times are wrong because people come from different countries with different time zones and forget to adjust their camera settings. However it is likely that the day is right at least.

"But because one photo appears to have the wrong date or time, that doesn't prove that any of PeterMac's photos have the wrong date or time."

Nor does it prove that the picture that I posted has the wrong EXIF data, which was what Bluebag was implying.

I was just pointing out that Bluebag trying to say the EXIF data on the photo I posted could be wrong because he found a picture with obvious wrong EXIF data also applies to the photos PeterMac uses in his report.

by Nereid 09.11.14 10:53

BlueBag wrote:Thanks Tony,

My point about EXIF data is that it's unreliable without verification.

That is what I demonstrated with pictures on Flickr.

I agree, and the same applies to the pictures PeterMac uses in his report.

You can't have it both ways.

Can we agree though that day in the EXIF data is likely to be correct but the time may not be (see my post to Tony).

by plebgate 09.11.14 11:03

I see on the twitter feed that there is a call for Mr. & Mrs. to take a lie detector test to answer any question. What a good idea and the last photo should be included imo.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 11:45

joyce1938 wrote: My question is ,, Is too much being made of all this photo stuff ,does it take away from anything else ,so many half truths etc .joyce1938

Yup, that's exactly what I've been saying.

And for those who have followed the case non stop for 7 years, the importance placed on the last photo has probably just gradually increased over time, unnoticed, along with the increase in people believing Madeleine died before May 3rd... but for somebody coming back to the case after a few years break it's shocking how the default position now seems to be that Madeleine died before May 3rd and that the last photo was either photoshopped or the date altered. The altered date theory does seem like a last ditch attempt to try to link the photo to a death before May 3rd , because experts have ruled out photoshopping. Presumably the experts didn't categorically say yes the date has been changed, they just said it may have been or it may actually be correct.

by Carrry On Doctor 09.11.14 11:48

plebgate wrote:I see on the twitter feed that there is a call for Mr. & Mrs. to take a lie detector test to answer any question. What a good idea and the last photo should be included imo.

What better way for TM's to demonstrate their innocence and silence their critics....a body blow to the 'haters' and a monkey off the back.

I can see it now....move over Miliband.....

Oh please.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 11:50

Dee Coy wrote:
joyce1938 wrote:My question is ,, Is too much being made of all this photo stuff ,does it take away from anything else ,so many half truths etc .

I agree we are missing the major point.

I don't know if the picture is photoshopped or not. But it really doesn't matter if it can be proved that the date has been altered. That the picture is such a controversy of bitter dispute regarding the minutiae of photoshopping suits the McCanns - particularly if it turns out it isn't shopped, as the accusers lose credibility and the moral high-ground immediately.

Exactly my thoughts and I feel the same about all the faked creche records/substituted child theories.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.14 11:54

Dee Coy wrote:
I don't know if the picture is photoshopped or not.

REPLY: Two acknowledged experts are certain that has not been.

But it really doesn't matter if it can be proved that the date has been altered.

REPLY: That's like saying the truth doesn't matter. Either the date has been altered - or it hasn't. Surely the truth is above everything in this whole case?

That the picture is such a controversy of bitter dispute regarding the minutiae of photoshopping suits the McCanns...

REPLY: How so? On the contrary, it draws attention to a key plank of their account - "the Last Photo taken at 2.29pm on 3 May proves that Madeleine was alive then" - and thereby casts doubt on other parts of their account. By the way, the dispute is hardly 'bitter'. More like: subject to robust debate

- particularly if it turns out it isn't shopped, as the accusers lose credibility and the moral high-ground immediately.

REPLY: Indeed, if the Last Photo is genuine but taken on a different date, those who say it is photoshopped have lost their credibility - at least on that issue

But it matters not one jot if that date has been inserted as a false date.

REPLY: The truth about when the Last Photo was taken is a pivotal fact in the whole case. I don't think anyone could possibly dispute that

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.14 11:58

Stillthinking wrote:
Presumably the experts didn't categorically say yes the date has been changed, they just said it may have been or it may actually be correct.

That is true.

They said how easy it would be to change the EXIF data but did not and could not say if it had been so altered.

That is why PeterMac and others have been looking at all the other forensic and other circumstantial evidence we have about when this photo was taken.

by Liz Eagles 09.11.14 12:04

Stillthinking wrote:
joyce1938 wrote: My question is ,, Is too much being made of all this photo stuff ,does it take away from anything else ,so many half truths etc .joyce1938

Yup, that's exactly what I've been saying.

And for those who have followed the case non stop for 7 years, the importance placed on the last photo has probably just gradually increased over time, unnoticed, along with the increase in people believing Madeleine died before May 3rd... but for somebody coming back to the case after a few years break it's shocking how the default position now seems to be that Madeleine died before May 3rd and that the last photo was either photoshopped or the date altered. The altered date theory does seem like a last ditch attempt to try to link the photo to a death before May 3rd , because experts have ruled out photoshopping. Presumably the experts didn't categorically say yes the date has been changed, they just said it may have been or it may actually be correct.

What explains the delay in producing the last photo?

The world's press were at the feet of the McCanns ready to rock in an instant with the last known photograph taken of Madeleine McCann. This is the photograph that could have jolted the memory of people in Praia da Luz on the day she allegedly disappeared to come forward, and who knows, perhaps remember there was a sinister person hanging around. This was THE photo to release not just to the police but to the media who would have happily pixelated Madeleine's sister from the photo.

This photograph was the last documented time Madeleine was seen in public wearing those clothes wasn't it?

So why the delay?

Has a witness ever come forward to confirm that they saw Madeleine at the pool on 3rd May wearing those clothes?

This isn't about who is right or wrong.

I'm with Nina on this. It's a bit like saying my dog is missing but here's a lovely photo of him when he was a puppy.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 12:09

Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Presumably the experts didn't categorically say yes the date has been changed, they just said it may have been or it may actually be correct.
That is true.

They said how easy it would be to change the EXIF data but did not and could not say if it had been so altered.

That is why PeterMac and others have been looking at all the other forensic and other circumstantial evidence we have about when this photo was taken.

Has Amaral ever given his thoughts on the last photo? As far as I know he believes she was alive on the afternoon of May 3rd.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.14 12:16

Stillthinking wrote:
Has Amaral ever given his thoughts on the last photo? As far as I know he believes she was alive on the afternoon of May 3rd.

That is also correct.

He believes that all those, including the McCanns, who gave evidence about Madeleine and her parents having had a 'high tea' together at around 5.30pm on 3 May, were telling the truth.

by Guest 09.11.14 12:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
Dee Coy wrote:
I don't know if the picture is photoshopped or not.

REPLY: Two acknowledged experts are certain that has not been.

But it really doesn't matter if it can be proved that the date has been altered.

REPLY: That's like saying the truth doesn't matter. Either the date has been altered - or it hasn't. Surely the truth is above everything in this whole case?

That the picture is such a controversy of bitter dispute regarding the minutiae of photoshopping suits the McCanns...

REPLY: How so? On the contrary, it draws attention to a key plank of their account - "the Last Photo taken at 2.29pm on 3 May proves that Madeleine was alive then" - and thereby casts doubt on other parts of their account. By the way, the dispute is hardly 'bitter'. More like: subject to robust debate

- particularly if it turns out it isn't shopped, as the accusers lose credibility and the moral high-ground immediately.

REPLY: Indeed, if the Last Photo is genuine but taken on a different date, those who say it is photoshopped have lost their credibility - at least on that issue

But it matters not one jot if that date has been inserted as a false date.

REPLY: The truth about when the Last Photo was taken is a pivotal fact in the whole case. I don't think anyone could possibly dispute that

Tony, I am agreeing with you.

I am saying that if the date has been manipulated the photoshopping or otherwise becomes secondary. If the date is forged, that would be enough to undermine the McCanns' case.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 12:38

aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
joyce1938 wrote: My question is ,, Is too much being made of all this photo stuff ,does it take away from anything else ,so many half truths etc .joyce1938

Yup, that's exactly what I've been saying.

And for those who have followed the case non stop for 7 years, the importance placed on the last photo has probably just gradually increased over time, unnoticed, along with the increase in people believing Madeleine died before May 3rd... but for somebody coming back to the case after a few years break it's shocking how the default position now seems to be that Madeleine died before May 3rd and that the last photo was either photoshopped or the date altered. The altered date theory does seem like a last ditch attempt to try to link the photo to a death before May 3rd , because experts have ruled out photoshopping. Presumably the experts didn't categorically say yes the date has been changed, they just said it may have been or it may actually be correct.
What explains the delay in producing the last photo?

The world's press were at the feet of the McCanns ready to rock in an instant with the last known photograph taken of Madeleine McCann. This is the photograph that could have jolted the memory of people in Praia da Luz on the day she allegedly disappeared to come forward, and who knows, perhaps remember there was a sinister person hanging around. This was THE photo to release not just to the police but to the media who would have happily pixelated Madeleine's sister from the photo.

This photograph was the last documented time Madeleine was seen in public wearing those clothes wasn't it?

So why the delay?

Has a witness ever come forward to confirm that they saw Madeleine at the pool on 3rd May wearing those clothes?

This isn't about who is right or wrong.

I'm with Nina on this. It's a bit like saying my dog is missing but here's a lovely photo of him when he was a puppy.

The "puppy" photo was the best face on, close up shot they had of her at short notice, late at night so I understand that being used. Other photos were released after that.I agree that maybe a pic with the clothes she was wearing would jog people's memories, even if she allegedly didn't go missing in those clothes, but in the early days the emphasis seemed to be on clear close ups of her.

Re a witness coming forward. No idea but thinking about it shortly before the last photo was released, police asked the public to send in photos they had taken around Ocean Club so that police could look at people in the background... now knowing that any of those pics could have them in the background on May 3rd would they really fake a photo for that day?

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 12:41

Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Has Amaral ever given his thoughts on the last photo? As far as I know he believes she was alive on the afternoon of May 3rd.
That is also correct.

He believes that all those, including the McCanns, who gave evidence about Madeleine and her parents having had a 'high tea' together at around 5.30pm on 3 May, were telling the truth.

As do I, which makes faking a last photo to prove she was alive, unnecessary.

by **PeterMac** 09.11.14 12:43

IF Russell had had the Canon, why would he not have done this.

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

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

ERGO
He didn't.
QED

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 12:45

PeterMac wrote:IF Russell had had the Canon, why would he not have done this.

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

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

ERGO
He didn't.
QED

Because they had access to a camera and then a printer, not editing software? Also the 2nd is a face on hatless pic.

by Liz Eagles 09.11.14 12:59

Stillthinking wrote:
aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
joyce1938 wrote: My question is ,, Is too much being made of all this photo stuff ,does it take away from anything else ,so many half truths etc .joyce1938

Yup, that's exactly what I've been saying.

And for those who have followed the case non stop for 7 years, the importance placed on the last photo has probably just gradually increased over time, unnoticed, along with the increase in people believing Madeleine died before May 3rd... but for somebody coming back to the case after a few years break it's shocking how the default position now seems to be that Madeleine died before May 3rd and that the last photo was either photoshopped or the date altered. The altered date theory does seem like a last ditch attempt to try to link the photo to a death before May 3rd , because experts have ruled out photoshopping. Presumably the experts didn't categorically say yes the date has been changed, they just said it may have been or it may actually be correct.
What explains the delay in producing the last photo?

The world's press were at the feet of the McCanns ready to rock in an instant with the last known photograph taken of Madeleine McCann. This is the photograph that could have jolted the memory of people in Praia da Luz on the day she allegedly disappeared to come forward, and who knows, perhaps remember there was a sinister person hanging around. This was THE photo to release not just to the police but to the media who would have happily pixelated Madeleine's sister from the photo.

This photograph was the last documented time Madeleine was seen in public wearing those clothes wasn't it?

So why the delay?

Has a witness ever come forward to confirm that they saw Madeleine at the pool on 3rd May wearing those clothes?

This isn't about who is right or wrong.

I'm with Nina on this. It's a bit like saying my dog is missing but here's a lovely photo of him when he was a puppy.

The "puppy" photo was the best face on, close up shot they had of her at short notice, late at night so I understand that being used. Other photos were released after that.I agree that maybe a pic with the clothes she was wearing would jog people's memories, even if she allegedly didn't go missing in those clothes, but in the early days the emphasis seemed to be on clear close ups of her.

Re a witness coming forward. No idea but thinking about it shortly before the last photo was released, police asked the public to send in photos they had taken around Ocean Club so that police could look at people in the background... now knowing that any of those pics could have them in the background on May 3rd would they really fake a photo for that day?

I'm not sure why you are so confident of what you have written.

I certainly couldn't be confident of any of the claims you make, especially in your first paragraph because it's too dismissive and emotive for me and it borders on apologetic without any fact (I'm not going to go into who actually asked for photographs as I know you know who did that - and it wasn't the police).

It's essentially your opinion.

I hope Madeleine has better folk on her side who make no apologies for anyone who was around her at the time of her disappearance.

There can be no excuse for the last photo not to have been published instantly to the press and it simply has to be questioned as to why this didn't happen.

God bless Madeleine.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.14 12:59

Stillthinking wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Has Amaral ever given his thoughts on the last photo? As far as I know he believes she was alive on the afternoon of May 3rd.
That is also correct.

He believes that all those, including the McCanns, who gave evidence about Madeleine and her parents having had a 'high tea' together at around 5.30pm on 3 May, were telling the truth.

As do I, which makes faking a last photo to prove she was alive, unnecessary.

Not really.

If, for the sake of argument, the Portuguese police...

* doubted the David Payne visit to G5A at 6.30pm on 3 May

and also

* doubted the various and contradctory accounts of Madeleine at the 'high tea' at 5.30pm on 3 May...

then...

the Last Photo which was oh-so-definitely taken at 2.29pm on 3 May...

...would come in very handy.

Wouldn't it?