Recap on the Tennis Balls photo

Woofer wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

1soapy wrote:
I'm also a bit reluctant to think that any conspiracy or work by certain people, like all these alleged photo-shopped pics that we today are still looking at and thinking through, could have all been considered within the short time that any guilty party actually had back then.

With the Last Photo, all they had to do was alter the EXIF metadata from 29/4 to 3/5
And that photo was not released until 23rd - and in the press on 24th - (complete with all the Mitchell nonsense about the time being out by a hour - look ever here, not over there - look, look, )
so someone had ample time to do it her / himself, or to get someone with relevant knowledge and computer programme to do it.
GM came back from the UK WITH Mitchell on 22rd
Other close family members came from other places the same day.

I don`t know anything about Adobe Photoshop. Can someone who knows about EXIF data tell me what this means (the bit I`ve bolded below)  - does it mean the Adobe Photoshop was used and could it have been altered using Adobe Photoshop? :-

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

First Generation, High Resolution copy of last photo
Thanks to 'gestalt' from the3arguidos forum for tracking down this copy and 'BakedBean' for EXIF information


"Full EXIF details:
 
XMP
Create Date 2007:05:24 17:41:20+01:00
11 months, 23 days, 7 hours, 3 minutes, 4 seconds ago
Creator Tool Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
Date/Time Digitized 2007:05:03 13:29:51+01:00
1 year, 13 days, 11 hours, 14 minutes, 33 seconds ago
Date/Time Original 2007:05:03 13:29:51+01:00
1 year, 13 days, 11 hours, 14 minutes, 33 seconds ago
Derived From Document ID adobe:docid:photoshop:f6b0285f-0a0a-11dc-b952-be0bcc6c30e7
Derived From Instance ID uuid:63e9333c-0a0c-11dc-b952-be0bcc6c30e7
Document ID adobe:docid:photoshop:367c54b5-0a0d-11dc-b952-be0bcc6c30e7  "

G1 wrote:Hi, I'm new to the discussion. I can't find what I've been searching for discussed anywhere else in the web.

 A commenter called "dewdrop" in public comments on the last photo on truthformadeleine.com made a crucial photo analysis. It shows a missing shadow for Gerry McCann's arm. The so-called last photo has been claimed to be doctored before, a lot, of course, but not in a way that was so glaring and clear. To me it now seems beyond doubt that this photo has in some way gone through computer photo editing software.

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

See the photo, look at where there is a blatant omission of a shadow of an elbow and good part of an arm.

This brings up questions:

1. Does that mean, as others have suggested, one or more persons in the photo have been "photoshopped into" the photo?

2. If you believe a person or persons were not added to the photo, does this mean the photo can be trusted at all? Date of photo, EXIF info including time (strangely - exactly "solar noon"), other shadows.

3. What suggests this could involve the McCanns, or that they are the victims of attempted scapegoating, as the digital photo seems to have been stolen and, strangely returned with Gerry's wallet? (How many wallets have been stolen with cash taken, other cash in Euros left, with cards untouched and posted back home?)


You can find the page of truthformadeleine.com where dewdrop posted the photo analysis in the link below. Also, you can see some of my comments after his post

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

Woofer wrote:
I`ve had a look at the posts, including yours, on truthformadeleine.  Are you suggesting the Mcs may have been scapegoated by a highly professional team of child traffickers ? 
Gerry`s wallet was supposedly stolen at a London train station when he was bending down.
And do we know what photo of Maddie was still in the wallet?

---

Hi woofer. Thanks for replying.

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting as one of the two only possibilities I can think of.

As I wrote on the tfm.com site, I find dewdrop's simple shadow analysis more or less completely convincing, and the missing elbow and part of arm shadow something really major. To me it is saying, nearly without doubt, "this photo has been either played around with or made up significantly by a Photoshop style of computer program."

Either the McCanns were involved, or they were victims. Considering I conclude the photo really must have been adjusted or partially concocted, with a shadow missing, I wonder how the McCanns would have missed filling in a shadow if they had done it themselves or arranged for it to be done.

There is no shadow for this part of Gerry's body, which needs to be in the photo on the ground. But, instead, there's a very slight black straight line of shadow around the pool edge lip. It's like a chubby, straight highlighter mark in shadow colour, and doesn't correspond in position or shape with any real body or clothing parts.

Shadow analysis, last photo again:

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

G1 wrote:

Woofer wrote:
I`ve had a look at the posts, including yours, on truthformadeleine.  Are you suggesting the Mcs may have been scapegoated by a highly professional team of child traffickers ? 
Gerry`s wallet was supposedly stolen at a London train station when he was bending down.
And do we know what photo of Maddie was still in the wallet?

---

Hi woofer. Thanks for replying.

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting as one of the two only possibilities I can think of.

As I wrote on the tfm.com site, I find dewdrop's simple shadow analysis more or less completely convincing, and the missing elbow and part of arm shadow something really major. To me it is saying, nearly without doubt, "this photo has been either played around with or made up significantly by a Photoshop style of computer program."

Either the McCanns were involved, or they were victims. Considering I conclude the photo really must have been adjusted or partially concocted, with a shadow missing, I wonder how the McCanns would have missed filling in a shadow if they had done it themselves or arranged for it to be done.

There is no shadow for this part of Gerry's body, which needs to be in the photo on the ground. But, instead, there's a very slight black straight line of shadow around the pool edge lip. It's like a chubby, straight highlighter mark in shadow colour, and doesn't correspond in position or shape with any real body or clothing parts.

Shadow analysis, last photo again:

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

G1 wrote:OK.

Re. The dogs - I just read this within the last day or two, by chance - that the very same dogs were used in the Haut de Garenne site in Jersey, identifying human remains outside. The videos made for the Madeleine case show one or both of the dogs being able to identify the scent of human remains on placed items in a test set-up. Their accuracy was said to be close to perfect, even for bodies left years ago. But no remains or items related to remains were found anywhere on site. Only animal remains, I think it was said, where the dogs alerted.

Also, I guess it may be though I'm going too far with my theory here. (But I don't think so, for a most professional gang perhaps dealing with money in the millions of Euros  for their fees.) Couldn't they have planted an item related to advanced human cadaver scent (or actually a dead animal) in the closet for an hour some day or night the McCanns were out? 

The possibility is there and ought at least to be mentioned. If you're dealing with professionals and millions of Euros, this is not too far fetched. Remember, when the 2010 news came out of the multiple sightings of girls thought to be very like Madeleine which the Portuguese police kept to themselves? It was discovered people calling in sightings were told by the PPJ, "Madeleine is dead. There is no way you saw Madeleine McCann." Isn't this exactly what an organised group would have tried to set up? How? One way is cadaver in the apartment and especially in the car after the disappearance.

Also, I don't think the Kate's coat as a potential explanation for cadaver is a dud at all. She was said to be examining multiple dead bodies in the weeks before the holiday. It's a coat in hot weather. It goes over the sofa, in the wardrobe and in the hire car boot - but nowhere else - out of the way, untouched. 

For me, the two possibilities and what may be false alerts in the dogs' past is enough to exclude cadaver as  evidence which could be in a category of rather conclusive to any guilt of the McCanns. For me, it doesn't seem close to being potentially conclusive evidence against the McCanns.

aquila wrote:

G1 wrote:OK.

Re. The dogs - I just read this within the last day or two, by chance - that the very same dogs were used in the Haut de Garenne site in Jersey, identifying human remains outside. The videos made for the Madeleine case show one or both of the dogs being able to identify the scent of human remains on placed items in a test set-up. Their accuracy was said to be close to perfect, even for bodies left years ago. But no remains or items related to remains were found anywhere on site. Only animal remains, I think it was said, where the dogs alerted.

Also, I guess it may be though I'm going too far with my theory here. (But I don't think so, for a most professional gang perhaps dealing with money in the millions of Euros  for their fees.) Couldn't they have planted an item related to advanced human cadaver scent (or actually a dead animal) in the closet for an hour some day or night the McCanns were out? 

The possibility is there and ought at least to be mentioned. If you're dealing with professionals and millions of Euros, this is not too far fetched. Remember, when the 2010 news came out of the multiple sightings of girls thought to be very like Madeleine which the Portuguese police kept to themselves? It was discovered people calling in sightings were told by the PPJ, "Madeleine is dead. There is no way you saw Madeleine McCann." Isn't this exactly what an organised group would have tried to set up? How? One way is cadaver in the apartment and especially in the car after the disappearance.

Also, I don't think the Kate's coat as a potential explanation for cadaver is a dud at all. She was said to be examining multiple dead bodies in the weeks before the holiday. It's a coat in hot weather. It goes over the sofa, in the wardrobe and in the hire car boot - but nowhere else - out of the way, untouched. 

For me, the two possibilities and what may be false alerts in the dogs' past is enough to exclude cadaver as  evidence which could be in a category of rather conclusive to any guilt of the McCanns. For me, it doesn't seem close to being potentially conclusive evidence against the McCanns.

Have you had enough fun on the forum now?

rainbowonfairy wrote:

Re HdL in Jersey, whether or not anything was *dug up* is immaterial, it certainly points to a body/bodies being there for the dog to alert to. 
A very interesting piece on here has been posted on here, an interview with Lenny Harper, was iirc posted by aquila about the dogs at HdL (I can't remember which thread now - if anyone can locate the post, that would be great)

worriedmum wrote:G1 writes ''Also, I don't think the Kate's coat as a potential explanation for cadaver is a dud at all. She was said to be examining multiple dead bodies in the weeks before the holiday. It's a coat in hot weather. It goes over the sofa, in the wardrobe and in the hire car boot - but nowhere else - out of the way, *untouched. ''


But what about Cuddlecat? The tyre well of the car? The flower bed?

Oh, I see. You are saying it is easily transferable?

In that case, why wasn't it all over everything?

Can you have it both ways, G1?

* latex gloves lol?


---

Hi worriedmum.

About Kate's coat, I only think it was a possible explanation for scent, but the most important thing is ONE possible explanation, and the least likely of them. When there are a few, the cadaver scent does not remain something so convincing anymore.

why wasn't it all over everything?

In case Kate could have picked up cadaver scent on the coat in attending a morgue or morgues / deceased body scenes 6 times in a short time, then the places of cadaver scent in the Ocean Club flat may correspond with a coat.

It wasn't over everything because the coat ia likely only to have been worn or carried coming in the first time. (Or maybe another evening, but it's unlikely for a winter coat.) It would have been draped on the sofa, maybe just once, for an evening, then put away in the closet for the whole holiday, later put in the car boot. Perhaps it was draped on the terrace, maybe fell, hence alert at the flower bed. But these things do seem, possibly, corresponding to where a coat would be.

Just possibilities. I think this is a possibility. That's important when you think a certain piece of evidence is beyond doubt. I see the cadaver scent is easily doubted.

I have read some experts saying transfer of cadaver scent to clothing at morgues is possible depending on the length of time involved and what was going on. We don't know about that, so can only guess whether or not the coat can have been in enough contact to keep a bit of cadaver scent.

Remember, the dogs handler has said the dogs will alert to even a tiny bit of scent transferred to clothing or something else.

Again, I prefer the other explanation for cadaver - it may have been planted. But that more than one are possibble suggests to me there is nothing so strong in the cadaver evidence.

(Re. 'Cuddlecat', I thought it was fishy until I saw the dogs did not alert to cuddlecat first time, the toy was ignored and tossed away though stuffed in a dog's nose. Only when the toy was placed in the closet where there was cadaver found already did the dog 'alert' to it.)