Re: Another look at the Last photo

by **PeterMac** 17.10.14 15:23

BlueBag wrote:Peter,
I would love to know what the various people made of the PDF.
Did you get any response?

Just the standard one from OG.
The other two were sent via third parties who have proper access to Dr Amaral, and to the Senior echelons of the PJ, to ensure it got through any filter.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
To: pmac*********

Many thanks for taking the time to contact the Operation Grange mailbox.
Your email will be read by one of the officers on the enquiry team. You will appreciate that we receive a large volume of emails as part of this enquiry and as a result you may not necessarily receive any further contact from us. If, however we need to contact you further, an officer will be in touch in due course.
Total Policing is the Met's commitment to be on the streets and in your communities to catch offenders, prevent crime and support victims. We are here for London, working with you to make our capital safer.

by JohnyT 17.10.14 22:04

HelenMeg wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:this link is interesting - trying to prove why the last photo is photoshopped.

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

Ive just listened to this video from a photographer who says he has 40 years of experience with photography and he says why it is a fraudulent photo.
Please take the 10 minutes to watch - please please! Watch until the end. Very good. It has convinced me totally that iot has been photoshopped.
Sorry to quote my own post - but just very keen for those with an interest in whether it has been photoshopped to watch this person 'prove' that it has been photoshopped.
Please watch - only takes approx 10 minutes.

Well to be honest the last 2 minutes were utter rubbish. It's obvious why the photo of 'Maddie' on her own was 'shopped, it was so people could just focus on her. I don't think even the McC's would deny that it wasn't 'shopped. I'm not convinced with the shadow explanation either, oh and whilst I'm on a roll the other childs' arm is there, it's just hidden. Do people really think that 'someone would go to the lengths of 'shopping this image and omit someone's arm? I think it's only the EXIF data that's iffy.
JohnyT

by missbeetle 17.10.14 23:43

Snifferdog wrote:
Marian wrote:Tiny, I can just about accept that it is the same child in both photos but not that they were taken a day or two apart.

There seems to be a difference in age of at least a year.

Yes there definitely is an age discrepancy in the two photos.
I don't discount that photo shopping took place in the pool photo, and perhaps it could be another child sitting on the edge of the pool in place of Maddie.

After all, we are shown photos if her that dont add up:

Hair lengths chopping and changing, from short to longer in too small a time space.

Facial features, some not looking quite "right" when compared to others. Could it be possible that small details were photoshopped, such as specific facial features, in order to confuse people who may have seen Maddie and known her tobe in a specific location(s) before she was - (murdered according to BHH)?

After all we know that the parents have lied, so what is stopping them from lying with photos?
A small change of the placement of an individuals eyes, nose or mouth will change an appearance of a persons face, to become unrecognizable, as it is the most defining aspect of a persons face.
Is this another reason for asking for pictures of Madeleine? To see if anybody really knows what she likes looks like? All my thoughts and opinions.

My thoughts are the small photoshop adjustments could also be to fox biometric identification technology...

...possibly so pictures taken of Madeleine taken outside of family and friends can't be identified and queried?

Prior to her disappearance Madeleine must've featured in the background of other families' photographs and videos -

- Christmas parades, at Donegal, children's parties etc etc.

Facebook seems to have a lot of facial recognition technology to hand. Spookily so.

Post Madeleine being reported missing - it's jolly difficult to find a child whose face has been altered in pictures...

...more of a case of searching, not finding...?

by Rogue-a-Tory 17.10.14 23:55

JohnyT wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:this link is interesting - trying to prove why the last photo is photoshopped.

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

Ive just listened to this video from a photographer who says he has 40 years of experience with photography and he says why it is a fraudulent photo.
Please take the 10 minutes to watch - please please! Watch until the end. Very good. It has convinced me totally that iot has been photoshopped.
Sorry to quote my own post - but just very keen for those with an interest in whether it has been photoshopped to watch this person 'prove' that it has been photoshopped.
Please watch - only takes approx 10 minutes.
Well to be honest the last 2 minutes were utter rubbish. It's obvious why the photo of 'Maddie' on her own was 'shopped, it was so people could just focus on her. I don't think even the McC's would deny that it wasn't 'shopped. I'm not convinced with the shadow explanation either, oh and whilst I'm on a roll the other childs' arm is there, it's just hidden. Do people really think that 'someone would go to the lengths of 'shopping this image and omit someone's arm? I think it's only the EXIF data that's iffy.
JohnyT

Completely disagree with the conclusion about the Maddie solo being shopped. If that had been the case TM would have explained why. The last photo is faked, the most conclusive evidence being the sun and the angle of it. Can't have any angle if it was cloudy.

I'll add to that on the solo photo there are 5 clear differences from the fake.

GM's arm missing, obviously

Extra wall added in, very convincingly

Amelie is missing (right tight to Maddie in the fake)

Amelie replaced by concrete flags, not as convincing as the wall as someone has conveniently blurred this part of the image.

Shadow cast by the sun lounger on the grass is missing, touches MBM's hat in the other

A lot to trouble just for MBM close up. On more recent uses of this close up from the image, GM's elbow is clearly visible. Why go to all the shopping trouble just to create a realistic close up of Maddie? Surely crop it and explain. TM cocked up big time & didn't realise their error until after the true close up appeared by mistake in the Christmas 2008 video.

No fake photo expert but pretty good at spot the difference as a kid winkwink

by Rogue-a-Tory 18.10.14 0:02

palm tree wrote:There should be a lifeguard too.

No need for a LG, the pool is less than 25m probably the neighbouring one is too. Anyhow too cold to swim at the beginning of May 2007 in Portugual.

by plebgate 18.10.14 9:35

Bumping, just to keep it ahead of the Fake Passport thread.

by canada12 18.10.14 9:55

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

Completely disagree with the conclusion about the Maddie solo being shopped. If that had been the case TM would have explained why. The last photo is faked, the most conclusive evidence being the sun and the angle of it. Can't have any angle if it was cloudy.

I'll add to that on the solo photo there are 5 clear differences from the fake.

GM's arm missing, obviously

Extra wall added in, very convincingly

Amelie is missing (right tight to Maddie in the fake)

Amelie replaced by concrete flags, not as convincing as the wall as someone has conveniently blurred this part of the image.

Shadow cast by the sun lounger on the grass is missing, touches MBM's hat in the other

A lot to trouble just for MBM close up. On more recent uses of this close up from the image, GM's elbow is clearly visible. Why go to all the shopping trouble just to create a realistic close up of Maddie? Surely crop it and explain. TM cocked up big time & didn't realise their error until after the true close up appeared by mistake in the Christmas 2008 video.

No fake photo expert but pretty good at spot the difference as a kid

You missed one other difference. Have a look at the two photos side by side:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Down beside Madeleine's left hand, in The Last Photo you can see the edge of the pool. See where the white pool apron touches the fold in her wrist.

In the solo photo, the white edge of the pool is absent where the fold of her wrist is.

by juliet 18.10.14 10:07

In my view Madeleine's head has been photoshopped not very convincingly to another child's body. See the great big physiologically impossible gap to the right. Also as said already, this little girl and the bigger, lankier unkempt tennis ball girl are not the same. (ps: it's aiyoyo keeping the passport thread going - she has to come on every hour to say how ludicrous and shameful it is to suggest Gerry would fake his pic).

by Snifferdog 18.10.14 10:13

If photoshopped, it does explain the absence of S.M. from the picture. A lot of extra trouble needed to shop him in in a limited time frame whilst back home.

ETA. Lets not have unnecessary arguments, as house divided on itself will fall, and we damage our integrity. Bury the hatchet guys.
I'm not including the recent troll attacks here!

by **PeterMac** 18.10.14 10:22

It stil does not answer the question why the Tapas person would not simply have cropped M out of the photo for the poster.
Like this, cropped as close to the elbow as I can
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

Compared with this, the poster photo, which from its aspect ratio has obviously been cropped from another photo
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

The answer is I think fairly obvious.
The Last Photo was on a camera NOT handed to the Tapas-man, nor indeed to the PJ, but was retained and called into play at a later date.
Probably !

by Hicks 18.10.14 10:27

juliet wrote:In my view Madeleine's head has been photoshopped not very convincingly to another child's body. See the great big physiologically impossible gap to the right. Also as said already, this little girl and the bigger, lankier unkempt tennis ball girl are not the same. (ps: it's aiyoyo keeping the passport thread going - she has to come on every hour to say how ludicrous and shameful it is to suggest Gerry would fake his pic).

I have never noticed that before, the head does look odd with that line across the neck. The more I look at it the odder it becomes.
It could be that another child in the group was sitting next to Amelie in that photo on the Thursday. That would explain the difference between the last photo and the tennis ball photo, and why Madeleine appears to be older in the tennis photo.

JT daughter perhaps?

by juliet 18.10.14 10:31

Or one of the two girls Kikoratton is so sure were used by the McCanns that week.

by **PeterMac** 18.10.14 10:33

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

by Snifferdog 18.10.14 10:52

Another anomaly, Maddies neck should be in deep shade, especially under the chin area, and not as pale as it looks in the photo, where her neck is whole shades lighter than her chest area.

The other photo displayed here shows an even stranger neck line. I know some people have these, but Maddies one where she wears the pimk polka dots shown here has a really odd looking neckline. Strange white highlights under the ginormous neck crease that makes it seem as though her neck protrudes below it.
To your left of Ms hand we can see what looks to be a weird light shade bulge, which gives her chest area an unusual misshapen shape.

by TellTheTruth 18.10.14 10:53

Thanks Petermac.

I have no techical skills or knowledge of how to photoshop but this has always puzzled me. Where EXACTLY was the last photo between the date it was taken and the date it was given out? It must have been on a camera SOMEWHERE waiting to be altered/ dates changed etc.

So, who had it? Where was it hidden? How was it missed? Was it given to someone for safekeeping?

So many questions.

BTW, thanks you Petermac for all your amazing work here. thumbsup

by Guest 18.10.14 10:58

juliet wrote:Or one of the two girls Kikoratton is so sure were used by the McCanns that week.

Bridget made a comment about the creche being full of blonde, three year-olds?

by Snifferdog 18.10.14 11:07

In both photos Madeleine's neck has the look of an older adult, which has lost some of its elasticity due to age and weight gain, not a little girls neck at all, which should not have the look of hanging loose skin. Even my neck doesn't look like that, and Im long past the age of beauty pageants

big grin

by **PeterMac** 18.10.14 11:17

TellTheTruth wrote:
I have no techical skills or knowledge of how to photoshop but this has always puzzled me. Where EXACTLY was the last photo between the date it was taken and the date it was given out? It must have been on a camera SOMEWHERE waiting to be altered/ dates changed etc.
So, who had it? Where was it hidden? How was it missed? Was it given to someone for safekeeping?
So many questions.:

The Last Photo was taken on the Canon Powershot A620
That camera was still in the apartment when the PJ were taking their photos between 1am and 5am 4/5/7
It was not handed over to the PJ, since Kate helpfully tells she had it in her possession on 10/5/7, when the Olympus was in Hampshire being examined.
And she also adds the helpful prosecution point that the photos she was looking at had dates.
Dr Amaral did miss it, and noted its presence on 8/5/7 during a meeting with British Police officers, deciding to take possession of all the Tapas groups cameras and photos
But by then the Canon was beyond his reach, and was not handed over, which Kate has merrily confirmed.

Then
Gerry to UK 20/5/7
Gerry to PdL 22/5/7
MITCHELL to PdL 22/5/7
Philomena to Pdl 22/5/7
Photo to agency 23/5/7
Photo released to the world 24/5/7 (with all the bo***** about look at the time - look at the time = look at the DATE)
Pure Mitchell.
And I have the feeling that the first thing he ever did for the McCanns has done for them.

It doesn't take much deductive intelligence to "purport a theory" here.

by Snifferdog 18.10.14 11:40

I recall reading that Alex Woolfall advised the Mcs and co. to delete the photos from their cameras. This was before the PJ examined the cameras they confiscated. Is this true? does it account for the photos recovered being in black and white? Also this Imo could be seen as interference in a foreign police investigation?

by tiny 22.10.14 18:29

Just had a look on Madeleine McCann Controversy page and there is a pool pic of Madeleine on her own,can anyone bring over to here if that's allowed

its on a pic with kate at a pc.

by HelenMeg 23.10.14 22:12

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

Courtesy of website: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I am wondering if this was really taken on 2nd May or was another forgery in terms of date...

by Guest 23.10.14 23:07

It is more likely to be 28th April in my opinion as the clothes the children are wearing are very similar to what they had on in the airport bus footage.

by Guest 24.10.14 0:38

tiny wrote:Just had a look on Madeleine McCann Controversy page and there is a pool pic of Madeleine on her own,can anyone bring over to here if that's allowed

its on a pic with kate at a pc.

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

You get a glimpse of it here at about 1.30.

This is a horrible video with every inappropriate photo of Madeleine thrown in.

by tiny 24.10.14 7:16

Marian wrote:
tiny wrote:Just had a look on Madeleine McCann Controversy page and there is a pool pic of Madeleine on her own,can anyone bring over to here if that's allowed

its on a pic with kate at a pc.

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

You get a glimpse of it here at about 1.30.

This is a horrible video with every inappropriate photo of Madeleine thrown in.

thank you Marian, I just thought it odd that there is a pic of Madeleine on her own when there is talk of this pool pic being fake

by Angelique 24.10.14 9:24

tiny wrote:
Marian wrote:
tiny wrote:Just had a look on Madeleine McCann Controversy page and there is a pool pic of Madeleine on her own,can anyone bring over to here if that's allowed

its on a pic with kate at a pc.

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

You get a glimpse of it here at about 1.30.

This is a horrible video with every inappropriate photo of Madeleine thrown in.
thank you Marian, I just thought it odd that there is a pic of Madeleine on her own when there is talk of this pool pic being fake

I think the picture of Madeleine by the pool alone has been discussed previously as to which was the original. Is it taken from the Last photo and then Gerry's elbow removed to the point where the stone wall in the background was also replaced. Or was it this picture super-imposed into the Last Photo. I think it's part of the ruse. The Last Photo is presented as true and they then produce, as you would under the circumstances of a missing child, a lone picture of Madeleine. The trouble is the stone wall. Would you got to that extent if you were only highlighting the child.

I am off again - discussing the Last photo - I can't seem to get away.

by canada12 24.10.14 10:40

I would like to see a photo of the stone wall by itself - exactly the spot behind where Madeleine is shown sitting, and about two feet on either side of her, especially to her right (the left side of the photo).

My reasoning is that if the solo photo came from The Last Photo, the blurry wall behind her would have been created using Photoshop, to replace the space left by Gerry's elbow.

But if the solo photo came first, we should be able to see the wall exactly as it looks in reality, even with the deliberate blurring.

If anyone comes across a photo that shows the wall by itself, it would be an excellent find. I know of one, however the relevant spot on the wall is obscured by some loungers, unfortunately.

by **PeterMac** 24.10.14 14:11

I have just had another go at cropping the "original' image to select only Madeleine, perhaps for a poster ?

You can get this - totally unretouched. No elbow, no brother's leg, just Madeleine.

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

So why did they feel the need to select a bigger bit and photoshop it for the PowerPoint presentation in Brussels, or wherever

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

And why did they select this one for the Missing Posters

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

I can think of only one coherent reason, but there may of course be others.

(Oh, and by the way the top photo was taken on a cloudy day in a Force 4 WNW wind, at 19ºC ! Just thought you would like to know.)

by j.rob 24.10.14 15:12

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

Courtesy of website: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I am wondering if this was really taken on 2nd May or was another forgery in terms of date...

I find this a very peculiar photograph. It is completely 'disconnected'. The only person making any kind of eye contact with the photographer is another guest at Ocean Club (who I think has been identified). One small dark haired child appears to be looking up at Gerry but Gerry is not really connecting with either Sean or, in particular, Madeleine.

I strongly suspect it is another of those artifacts put together to paint a picture of a happy family scene at the Ocean Club on Wednesday 2nd May. A scene in which Gerry was playing with Madeleine and one of the twins on Wednesday. When he wasn't doing anything of the kind.

(Of note, as with the alleged 'last photo', only one of the twins is in the photograph.)

I wonder why TM chose to include the other guests in the photo when they could easily have been cropped out or made unidentifiable (the male guest whose face is clearly visible may not have wanted to be in a photo released for the public, for instance.)

There is always a reason with TM.

I wonder when the photo was released.

by j.rob 24.10.14 15:26

PeterMac wrote:I have just had another go at cropping the "original' image to select only Madeleine, perhaps for a poster ?

You can get this - totally unretouched. No elbow, no brother's leg, just Madeleine.

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

So why did they feel the need to select a bigger bit and photoshop it for the PowerPoint presentation in Brussels, or wherever

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

And why did they select this one for the Missing Posters

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

I can think of only one coherent reason, but there may of course be others.

(Oh, and by the way the top photo was taken on a cloudy day in a Force 4 WNW wind, at 19ºC ! Just thought you would like to know.)

That 'missing' poster is an absolute disgrace. I have seen more care put into a poster for a missing cat.

Madeleine was very nearly four years old. Much closer to four years old than three years old. So it is deceptive. There is a huge difference between a three and four year old child.

And the 'missing' photograph is clearly of a child younger than a nearly four year. So it is completely misleading. Plus she looks different and much younger than the photo allegedly taken on the last day.

No telephone number included even on the 'poster'. Gee - they really wanted to 'find' her, didn't they? Even to the extent of inventing a colomba when she didn't have one. As later admitted. In her passport the eye 'defect' is described as 'fleks'.

It looks like the sort of notice you would find if someone had left a pair of spectacles in the restaurant and was hoping that someone might hand them in to reception the next day.