Another look at the Last photo

MissesWillYa wrote:

bobbin wrote:

MissesWillYa wrote:The lack of photos or anecdotes from others who would have been in contact with Madeleine in the UK has been the most glaring issue for me all along. I don't understand it. My children's schools have always required us to sign consent forms so that photos can be taken in the classroom, as documentation of learning and activities that are done throughout the year. I don't know anyone who doesn't consent to this. There are photos of my kids playing "house" in the their preschool classes, participating in assemblies with guest musicians and artists, playing on the swings and in the sandbox, working on experiments in class when they were a little older...the point is, there is lots of visual evidence that they go to school.

As some else mentioned, how about birthday parties? Play dates? Holiday gatherings with other relatives? Summer barbecues? I don't understand how, in this age of easy photographic ability with digital cameras, there aren't tons of photos available. My children were born in a similar time frame to the McC children and we have more photos of them than we know what to do with. It's just so easy to do today.

Does anyone know whether they were active in a church parish in the UK? I'm surprised there haven't been stories about Madeleine in Sunday school or playing in the church nursery. They really kept this girl under wraps at home, I guess.

The most peculiar thing of all though is when Madeleine disappeared, why did they DELETE a whole load of photos ?

Agreed. It makes no sense at all. You would think that parents of a missing child would want to save every photo they ever took of her. Then again, parents of missing children also usually make available the most current photos they have, and don't play fast and loose with their accounts of the circumstances of the child's disappearance. They want their children found; I can't say that with confidence about these two.

Snifferdog wrote:

j.rob wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:Which j.rob begs the question if the fertility problem lay with Kate or Gerry?
I don't think this has been established yet, but I may be wrong.

In Kate's book she writes that she was diagnosed with endometriosis - 'which can sometimes cause fertility problems.'

But of course the problem might equally have been with GM. Although it does appear that the twins are the biological children of both of them.

There was an article in a Portuguese newspaper claiming that Gerry was not Madeleine's biological father. Link below. If this is the case, imo, it might explain quite a lot.

24horas editor Luis Fontes said his story was confirmed by Portuguese and British police insiders. "It’s true," he said. "Our sources are rock solid. If they think they can sue us, bring it on."

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

Snipped from the link you gave:

Mrs Renwick remembers sitting by the pool with Mrs McCann during a holiday in Majorca six or seven years ago and lamenting their mutual inability to have children.

So perhaps they both have fertility issues?

PeterMac wrote: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 !

PeterMac wrote:

IKNOWWHATHAPPENED wrote:
Do you think the 'last photo' may have been taken on the camera of P.E ?

The Last Photo was taken on the Canon Powershot A620.

PeterMac wrote:

IKNOWWHATHAPPENED wrote:
The A620 was 'allegedly' Katies camera. Do you believe Katie took the picture ?

The A620 is on the dining table in the PJ photo, taken between 1am and 5am 4/5/7
St Katherine says in Prosecution Exhibit KH1 that she had her camera in the police station on 10/5/7
"Gerry was taken in to be interviewed while I remained downstairs. I made use of the long wait I anticipated by sitting down with a notebook, pen and my camera, containing dated photographs of the holiday, and trying to write a detailed account of everything that had happened the week before."
and this is whilst her husband is making a signed statement in which he says
" Asked, he clarifies that, apart from the personal photos already delivered by him to the police authorities after the disappearance of his
daughter MADELEINE, he has no others in his possession.”
and that she was making a list = more than one item - of the photos with times and dates, so as to be able to put together an account of everything that had happened on the holiday.
So those photos HAD dates and time.  Unlike those from the Olympus, which did not.
And the Olympus was in Hampshire

PeterMac wrote:

IKNOWWHATHAPPENED wrote:
The A620 was 'allegedly' Katies camera. Do you believe Katie took the picture ?

The A620 is on the dining table in the PJ photo, taken between 1am and 5am 4/5/7
St Katherine says in Prosecution Exhibit KH1 that she had her camera in the police station on 10/5/7
"Gerry was taken in to be interviewed while I remained downstairs. I made use of the long wait I anticipated by sitting down with a notebook, pen and my camera, containing dated photographs of the holiday, and trying to write a detailed account of everything that had happened the week before."
and this is whilst her husband is making a signed statement in which he says
" Asked, he clarifies that, apart from the personal photos already delivered by him to the police authorities after the disappearance of his
daughter MADELEINE, he has no others in his possession.”
and that she was making a list = more than one item - of the photos with times and dates, so as to be able to put together an account of everything that had happened on the holiday.
So those photos HAD dates and time.  Unlike those from the Olympus, which did not.
And the Olympus was in Hampshire

palm tree wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

IKNOWWHATHAPPENED wrote:
The A620 was 'allegedly' Katies camera. Do you believe Katie took the picture ?

The A620 is on the dining table in the PJ photo, taken between 1am and 5am 4/5/7
St Katherine says in Prosecution Exhibit KH1 that she had her camera in the police station on 10/5/7
"Gerry was taken in to be interviewed while I remained downstairs. I made use of the long wait I anticipated by sitting down with a notebook, pen and my camera, containing dated photographs of the holiday, and trying to write a detailed account of everything that had happened the week before."
and this is whilst her husband is making a signed statement in which he says
" Asked, he clarifies that, apart from the personal photos already delivered by him to the police authorities after the disappearance of his
daughter MADELEINE, he has no others in his possession.”
and that she was making a list = more than one item - of the photos with times and dates, so as to be able to put together an account of everything that had happened on the holiday.
So those photos HAD dates and time.  Unlike those from the Olympus, which did not.
And the Olympus was in Hampshire

That pic PM, with the camera on the table, do you think there's a map on the left, beside a glass?

BlueBag wrote:

palm tree wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

IKNOWWHATHAPPENED wrote:
The A620 was 'allegedly' Katies camera. Do you believe Katie took the picture ?

The A620 is on the dining table in the PJ photo, taken between 1am and 5am 4/5/7
St Katherine says in Prosecution Exhibit KH1 that she had her camera in the police station on 10/5/7
"Gerry was taken in to be interviewed while I remained downstairs. I made use of the long wait I anticipated by sitting down with a notebook, pen and my camera, containing dated photographs of the holiday, and trying to write a detailed account of everything that had happened the week before."
and this is whilst her husband is making a signed statement in which he says
" Asked, he clarifies that, apart from the personal photos already delivered by him to the police authorities after the disappearance of his
daughter MADELEINE, he has no others in his possession.”
and that she was making a list = more than one item - of the photos with times and dates, so as to be able to put together an account of everything that had happened on the holiday.
So those photos HAD dates and time.  Unlike those from the Olympus, which did not.
And the Olympus was in Hampshire

That pic PM, with the camera on the table, do you think there's a map on the left, beside a glass?

I think it's the coverless colouring book.

PeterMac wrote:

WMD wrote:
Just to be clear here,this last supposed photo at the pool is supposed to have been taken with the A620 which had date and times on them? which if I'm correct in my reading of this,then the last supposed photo did not come from the A620,am I reading this right?

NO.

The Last Photo - so called -  was taken on a Canon A-620, and a date and time were recorded in the EXIF metadata.
The question is - whether the date was subsequently altered - which is not difficult to do apparently.

Nina wrote:My two penneth for what it is worth.
This photograph has been discussed and debated and argued about for a very long time now and during all of this time I have always thought that Gerry had been pasted in and here are my reasons why, and sorry chaps but it is his thighs 

Had he been sat at the edge of a deeper pool his thighs would have been flatter/fatter as his legs would have been dangling so thigh fully pressed down.

However, he is sat on the side of a children's paddling pool so his legs are not dangling, indeed it is so shallow that his feet will be on the bottom of the pool, thus taking all the weight so I would have expected to see his knees higher up and no flatness of thigh at all.

I'll get me coat

HelenMeg wrote:When you look at PM's picture showing where they are sitting so that the view takes in the big tree trunk and the white wall behind with the flowers, you can see that Gerry is far too big.  From the pool edge, the big tree and wall behind it (refer PeterMac's document at beginning of thread) are quite a distance away. As Gerry has been pasted in 'far too big' it makes the tree seem only yards behind them. It distorts everything.
I think the photo was taken on 29th,m therefore a forgery, but I also think Gerry has been added and he is much too big.

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


This picture is from page three of this thread.
Where is the wall in the pool side photo?


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

WMD wrote:If you look directly behind Madeleine she is in line with the tree,take that line to the top picture then behind GM should be? those covered areas?

HelenMeg wrote:

WMD wrote:If you look directly behind Madeleine she is in line with the tree,take that line to the top picture then behind GM should be? those covered areas?

I think perhaps the covered areas would be out of view - too much to the right to feature..?