Another look at the Last photo

by **PeterMac** 14.10.14 11:53

" />

" />

" />

" />

" />

" />

" />

" />

" />

by **PeterMac** 14.10.14 12:00

" />

" />

" />

" />

" />

" />

" />

" />

" />

by Rogue-a-Tory 14.10.14 12:07

I've looked at this Peter, from loads of angles -

The exact solar noon date stamp

The unnatural poses

The cloudy weather on that day

The shadow angles projected in the photo, GM's chin/glasses v loungers

Edge of the pool by GM's legs

The elbow & length of wall differences between the wide angle and close up versions

The reflection of a square pool in GM's shaded in the hi-res version

The flat nature of the images of GM & Amelie

Nothing stands up, it's fake of at least 2 photoshopped pictures. Why fake it? Obviously TM needed some concrete proof of MBM's existence in the afternoon of 3 May.

by worriedmum 14.10.14 12:36

From page 55 of Kate's book,

''It was , I remember, very cold and windy and I discovered five layers of clothing were required to keep me comfortable.''

As it was so 'very cold and windy', can someone tell me

i) If the wind on the 3rd May was mentioned by any of the staff or diners at the Tapas bar . I ask because it appears to be a sort of gazebo area from the pictures. If it was very windy wouldn't the wind have made everything flap noisily?

ii)If it was very windy, why didn't the bedroom door slam shut the moment Kate opened the patio door?

iii) If it was very cold, was there heating on in the apartment? Doesn't Gerry remember Madeleine sleeping 'on' the covers, not 'in' them?

iv) If it was very cold and windy, and the bedroom window was open, wouldn't you notice this straight away when you check?

v)Why was the bedroom door not moving slightly if it was windy?

vi)If Gerry noticed the door was 'not as they had left it', why wouldn't he therefore assume it was the sort of draught created by opening the patio door?

by **PeterMac** 14.10.14 12:54

worriedmum wrote:From page 55 of Kate's book,
''It was , I remember, very cold and windy and I discovered five layers of clothing were required to keep me comfortable.''

As it was so 'very cold and windy', can someone tell me

i) If the wind on the 3rd May was mentioned by any of the staff or diners at the Tapas bar . I ask because it appears to be a sort of gazebo area from the pictures. If it was very windy wouldn't the wind have made everything flap noisily? The wind dropped to a low Force 3 that evening and the sky cleared completely by about 11pm
ii)If it was very windy, why didn't the bedroom door slam shut the moment Kate opened the patio door? See above, it wasn't
iii) If it was very cold, was there heating on in the apartment? Doesn't Gerry remember Madeleine sleeping 'on' the covers, not 'in' them? Covered in another thread Kate reports Madeleine "snuggled down in bed " Gerry reports her on top of the covers.
iv) If it was very cold and windy, and the bedroom window was open, wouldn't you notice this straight away when you check? See above. It wasn't
v)Why was the bedroom door not moving slightly if it was windy? See above
vi)If Gerry noticed the door was 'not as they had left it', why wouldn't he therefore assume it was the sort of draught created by opening the patio door?
Because they didn't work out this part of the story.

by **PeterMac** 14.10.14 12:58

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:I've looked at this Peter, from loads of angles -
Nothing stands up, it's fake of at least 2 photoshopped pictures. Why fake it? Obviously TM needed some concrete proof of MBM's existence in the afternoon of 3 May.

It is certainly a Forgery, purporting to be a photo taken at lunchtime on 3/5/7, but the two experts I have spoken to are fairly certain it is not photoshopped.
The alteration of the date and time are by far the easier route to go down.

And, as you say, it is the only independent "proof" of Madeleine's continued existence on 3/5/7.

by Snifferdog 14.10.14 13:09

Great post, I like the way you have put it all together in point form PeterMac.

The photo of Maddie in pink with white polka dots is another photo that looks a bit odd. Maddie looks as though she was encouraged to strike an adult pose.

The photos do seem to have been a very sensitive subject to some previous posters here.

Interesting bit about the solar zenith at the time mentioned. I did not know this.

We do know that Satanists "love" Rites and Rituals (if one can call what a demon possessed person, aka psychopath feels, love that is), as do the Masons, Pagans, some Churches, the politicians, and the gentry. Naturally, this mutual love of Ritual must all just be coincidental of course.

Something else to consider; Satanism runs in families, a bit like Catholicism, and they stick together, soos kak op 'n wol kombers. A bit like doctors do imo.
btw, jyst in case, I am NOT saying that Catholics are in any way Satanists.

by aiyoyo 14.10.14 13:26

PeterMac wrote:
Rogue-a-Tory wrote:I've looked at this Peter, from loads of angles -
Nothing stands up, it's fake of at least 2 photoshopped pictures. Why fake it? Obviously TM needed some concrete proof of MBM's existence in the afternoon of 3 May.

It is certainly a Forgery, purporting to be a photo taken at lunchtime on 3/5/7, but the two experts I have spoken to are fairly certain it is not photoshopped.
The alteration of the date and time are by far the easier route to go down.

And, as you say, it is the only independent "proof" of Madeleine's continued existence on 3/5/7.

As someone on the other forum said, last photo can also be for purpose of giving Gerry an alibi on the afternoon of the 3rd May.

Their fuss over the time on the photo being one hour out might have a more sinister significance to it. In case Gerry had been spotted with a laden blue bag somewhere else, the last photo will come in handy for argument.
Police should examine Gerry's whereabout at that time of the afternoon of the 3/5/07. There must be a sinister reason why the Mcs drew attention to the out of synch time.

by Guest 14.10.14 13:32

Well I'm sure the Police will be able to look at the camera memory card and work a few things out.

Won't they?

by aiyoyo 14.10.14 13:37

What camera memory card?

The canon camera where the last photo was taken from wasn't handed in to the Police.

Surely, the police are not going to ask for it now? Too late for that.

by Guest 14.10.14 13:38

aiyoyo wrote:The canon camera where the last photo was taken from wasn't handed in to the Police.

I know.

Sorry. Sarcasm doesn't always work on the internet.

by aiyoyo 14.10.14 13:42

@Petermac
Comparison of two forehead-shine photos, the date on the model's photo - should that not be 29th April instead of 29th May?

by JohnyT 14.10.14 14:44

.........or maybe ALL the weather channels were lying and have something to hide!
JohnyT

by **PeterMac** 14.10.14 14:52

aiyoyo wrote:@Petermac
Comparison of two forehead-shine photos, the date on the model's photo - should that not be 29th April instead of 29th May?

Yes it should. Bother !
I'll re-do it and see if admin can post it in.

EDITED TO ADD MANY thanks. have done it

by HelenMeg 14.10.14 16:34

An excellent clear summary re The Last Photo.

I am also of the opinion this was to provide a double alibi for both Madeleine and Gerry -great work!

by **PeterMac** 14.10.14 16:48

HelenMeg wrote:An excellent clear summary re The Last Photo.

I am also of the opinion this was to provide a double alibi for both Madeleine and Gerry -great work!

Would Gerry need one ?
He had his Miracle of the Spontaneously Healing Achilles Tendon atributed to St Katherine of the Multiple Immaculate Conceptions that afternoon,
so I think it is only Madeleine who needs one.

by juliet 14.10.14 17:01

I thought it was established years ago that the photo had been blatantly photoshopped. Gerry floating at the poolside, Amelie missing an arm, Madeleine looking ( as so often) as if her head has been transplanted at the wrong angle...plus Amelie looking much bigger than in other pix of her on holiday, and Maddie looking years younger than on the tennis balls pic. Not to mention the little black line near Amelie and the odd shadows. I don't believe this photo was genuine, on any day of the week.

by **PeterMac** 14.10.14 22:19

juliet wrote:I thought it was established years ago that the photo had been blatantly photoshopped. Gerry floating at the poolside, Amelie missing an arm, Madeleine looking ( as so often) as if her head has been transplanted at the wrong angle...plus Amelie looking much bigger than in other pix of her on holiday, and Maddie looking years younger than on the tennis balls pic. Not to mention the little black line near Amelie and the odd shadows. I don't believe this photo was genuine, on any day of the week.

That is why I submitted it to two experts.

By which I mean two people who work professionally and exclusively, in that trade, and in no other. They are paid for what they do. They are not amateur "dabblers"
One is an noted and internationally renowned academic who writes the protocols for the programmes which eventually turn into Photoshop or its equivalents,
The other is a practitioner who makes TV and cinema quality advertisement films, and whose job it is to REMOVE all traces of the gantries, ladders, hoses, etc
when making, for example the advert with all the paint flowing down the front of the old factory building.
I forget the name of the product - as with all advertising - but he REMOVED = photoshopped every frame to get rid of everything they didn't want to see.

I am no expert, so I rely on people who are.

by aiyoyo 15.10.14 1:21

PeterMac wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:An excellent clear summary re The Last Photo.

I am also of the opinion this was to provide a double alibi for both Madeleine and Gerry -great work!

Would Gerry need one ?
He had his Miracle of the Spontaneously Healing Achilles Tendon atributed to St Katherine of the Multiple Immaculate Conceptions that afternoon,
so I think it is only Madeleine who needs one.

He might.
If he'd been seen with a blue bag miles away from the pool at the time he said he was at the pool.
The last photo could well be put out as alibi for Gerry as much as for Madeleine, and Kate too in a sense since she was the photographer.

It is always possible that the last photo, being a family photo, with no one else around and no one witnessed them at the pool, is perfect one for them to use for more than the purpose of proving Madeleine was alive and well at that time.

I am curious whether the pool faces the restaurant or another resort facility that is always manned at the that time of the day? Just thinking if resort staff had seen them at the pool or if police are interviewing resort workers for this reason. General workers like gardener, pool cleaner, sweeper and bin clearing worker, laundry staff, chambermaids moving around in between pool to apt units, or generally other resort workers whose routine get them in vicinity of the pool could well be people OG are interested to interview.

7 people to re-interview is hell of a lot and can't be about one abductor.

by palm tree 15.10.14 8:11

There should be a lifeguard too.

by **PeterMac** 15.10.14 8:19

aiyoyo wrote:
He might.
If he'd been seen with a blue bag miles away from the pool at the time he said he was at the pool.
The last photo could well be put out as alibi for Gerry as much as for Madeleine, and Kate too in a sense since she was the photographer.

It is always possible that the last photo, being a family photo, with no one else around and no one witnessed them at the pool, is perfect one for them to use for more than the purpose of proving Madeleine was alive and well at that time.

I am curious whether the pool faces the restaurant or another resort facility that is always manned at the that time of the day? Just thinking if resort staff had seen them at the pool or if police are interviewing resort workers for this reason. General workers like gardener, pool cleaner, sweeper and bin clearing worker, laundry staff, chambermaids moving around in between pool to apt units, or generally other resort workers whose routine get them in vicinity of the pool could well be people OG are interested to interview.

7 people to re-interview is hell of a lot and can't be about one abductor.

That is an interesting point, but at 7 years on I think it unlikely that the staff would remember the weather conditions for a particular day, unless there were some sort of diary and daily work sheet.
They would be being asked to remember a Negative - that the family were definitely NOT by the pool on Thursday 3rd. Much more difficult to do unless the diary/daily log shows recovery of sunloungers from the pool where they had blown in, clearing leaves etc..

The group are in fact facing the road, or the bushes which protect it from the road.

Another look at the Last photo OCaerial

" />

You can see the big palm tree which features in the Last Photo, and work out almost exactly where they were. Tapas bar etc is hidden by the tree in the lower picture.

by **PeterMac** 15.10.14 8:20

palm tree wrote:There should be a lifeguard too.

It was far too cold for anyone to be swimming !

by plebgate 15.10.14 8:42

PeterMac wrote:
juliet wrote:I thought it was established years ago that the photo had been blatantly photoshopped. Gerry floating at the poolside, Amelie missing an arm, Madeleine looking ( as so often) as if her head has been transplanted at the wrong angle...plus Amelie looking much bigger than in other pix of her on holiday, and Maddie looking years younger than on the tennis balls pic. Not to mention the little black line near Amelie and the odd shadows. I don't believe this photo was genuine, on any day of the week.

That is why I submitted it to two experts.

By which I mean two people who work professionally and exclusively, in that trade, and in no other. They are paid for what they do. They are not amateur "dabblers"
One is an noted and internationally renowned academic who writes the protocols for the programmes which eventually turn into Photoshop or its equivalents,
The other is a practitioner who makes TV and cinema quality advertisement films, and whose job it is to REMOVE all traces of the gantries, ladders, hoses, etc
when making, for example the advert with all the paint flowing down the front of the old factory building.
I forget the name of the product - as with all advertising - but he REMOVED = photoshopped every frame to get rid of everything they didn't want to see.

I am no expert, so I rely on people who are.

Excellent PeterM, absolutely excellent.

Who would have thought when it was given as "The Last Photo" that somebody would go to such lengths for little Maddie.

Absolutely brilliant and thank you for explaining all.

clapping

by **PeterMac** 15.10.14 8:56

plebgate wrote:
Who would have thought when it was given as "The Last Photo" that somebody would go to such lengths for little Maddie.
. . . and thank you for explaining all.

Thank you.
To start with I think everyone more or less believed what they were hearing and what they were shown.
But within a few days it became clear that all was not well, and that the official story was shot full of holes
Later still Mitchell appeared on the scene and from that moment it became second nature for us all to Dis-believe Everything we were told or shown.
From that moment almost everything we thought we knew on Day 2 or 3 has been shown to be false
* Weather conditions making the entire story about slamming doors and whooshing curtain impossible
* Last Photo
* Tannerman being the abductor
* window as point of entry or exit
and so on.
Just about everything has been proved to be a mistake / misunderstanding / or a lie