Re: Another look at the Last photo

by **PeterMac** 24.06.15 23:30

plebgate wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
I do not recall having seen this transciption of the 2011 interview.
Near the start of the transcript it says:

"Gerry McCann: There’s a photo of her that afternoon that was taken at 2:29 (laughs) I think, we’ve got it recorded on the digital camera and er she was just sitting by the pool er with myself and we’ve both got our feet just paddling and she’s so happy."

I certainly do not recall ever reading that before. If the transcript is correct was this picure ever released?

Many thanks for that.
It is clearly a reference to the infamous Last photo. I had never realised that Gerry emphasised the 14:29 (which just happens to be exactly Solar Zenith on that date - Another one of those strange McCoincidences.
Any normal person would say :"Lunchtime" But we are not dealing with normal people
Previously had thought that Mitchell had organised the entire thing, but now there are TWO people involved - - and we have evidence that Gerry knew . . .
It becomes a conspiracy

Grange and the PJ have been aware for a long time, so don't bother them again, unless you really wish to, of course.

by plebgate 24.06.15 23:41

No mention of Maddie's sister in this photo though, so were there two photos taken I wonder?

by TheTruthWillOut 25.06.15 0:18

Leaving aside the last photo itself and there is so much else that is dodgy.

Was the Canon camera even the McCanns? Apart from what looks like a Canon A620 in the GNR picture of 5a there is no other proof AFAIK. Looking at the pics in the files and I would say it was more likely the Paynes camera.

Why did GM and MW hand in a CD of pictures instead of the camera and the memory cards themselves. A badly worded request of the PJ?

by **tigger** 25.06.15 5:21

TheTruthWillOut wrote:Leaving aside the last photo itself and there is so much else that is dodgy.

Was the Canon camera even the McCanns? Apart from what looks like a Canon A620 in the GNR picture of 5a there is no other proof AFAIK. Looking at the pics in the files and I would say it was more likely the Paynes camera.

Why did GM and MW hand in a CD of pictures instead of the camera and the memory cards themselves. A badly worded request of the PJ?

The Canon A620 (which allegedly also took the famous ‘last photograph) does not appear to have been in the hands of the PJ at all. Alex Woolfall and KM spent time going through the photographs. He also said it had ‘a lot’ of photographs on it. This is attested by Woolfall (Timeonline 6-10-07)so sometime between 5/5/07 and 8/5/07 as the tennis photo was allegedly on that camera. The tennis photo was sent around the world by 9/5/07.

From the book “madeleine” by Kate McCann. p. 123
"Later that day, Thursday 10 May, the Portuguese police held a press conference, [...] Meanwhile, Gerry and I, along with a couple of our friends, were called back to the police station in Portimão. [...] 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.”

4/5th May PJ look at the crime scene photos and decide to obtain the Canon.
The PJ also ask for holiday photos from all the Tapas group.
5th - 8th Alex Woolfall and Kate download photographs from the camera onto a laptop.The tennis photo must allegedly have been sent to the UK on this occasion. However, the PJ find no tennis photo that matches - but a tennis photo of a child with a racket is apparently recorded - presumably on the DVDs delivered on the 9th.
9th Gerry and M. Wright deliver two DVDs of holiday photos. (there can be seen only in black/white in the files)

The photographs in the files do have quite a number which are probably from the Payne's camera.

What if the intention had been to take a good number of 'family holiday' photos? But if something went wrong very early on and Maddie was not available for holiday snaps it explains the very few we have. Leaving aside the last photo which imo could have been taken any time as the McCs never relinguished the camera.

Interesting that Kate writes that she'd been unable to take photographs after that date which is allegedly when the pool photo was taken. So it - or elements of it - definitely could not have been taken later but imo that is not so.

Together with Gerry's precise time of 14.29 and Kate's inability to use the camera after that time the picture is neatly frozen at a very specific time and place.

We won't even go into the many and pointless changes of clothes Maddie allegedly went through that day.

by **tigger** 25.06.15 5:21

TheTruthWillOut wrote:Leaving aside the last photo itself and there is so much else that is dodgy.

Was the Canon camera even the McCanns? Apart from what looks like a Canon A620 in the GNR picture of 5a there is no other proof AFAIK. Looking at the pics in the files and I would say it was more likely the Paynes camera.

Why did GM and MW hand in a CD of pictures instead of the camera and the memory cards themselves. A badly worded request of the PJ?

The Canon A620 (which allegedly also took the famous ‘last photograph) does not appear to have been in the hands of the PJ at all. Alex Woolfall and KM spent time going through the photographs. He also said it had ‘a lot’ of photographs on it. This is attested by Woolfall (Timeonline 6-10-07)so sometime between 5/5/07 and 8/5/07 as the tennis photo was allegedly on that camera. The tennis photo was sent around the world by 9/5/07.

From the book “madeleine” by Kate McCann. p. 123
"Later that day, Thursday 10 May, the Portuguese police held a press conference, [...] Meanwhile, Gerry and I, along with a couple of our friends, were called back to the police station in Portimão. [...] 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.”

4/5th May PJ look at the crime scene photos and decide to obtain the Canon.
The PJ also ask for holiday photos from all the Tapas group.
5th - 8th Alex Woolfall and Kate download photographs from the camera onto a laptop.The tennis photo must allegedly have been sent to the UK on this occasion. However, the PJ find no tennis photo that matches - but a tennis photo of a child with a racket is apparently recorded - presumably on the DVDs delivered on the 9th.
9th Gerry and M. Wright deliver two DVDs of holiday photos. (there can be seen only in black/white in the files)

The photographs in the files do have quite a number which are probably from the Payne's camera.

What if the intention had been to take a good number of 'family holiday' photos? But if something went wrong very early on and Maddie was not available for holiday snaps it explains the very few we have. Leaving aside the last photo which imo could have been taken any time as the McCs never relinguished the camera.

Interesting that Kate writes that she'd been unable to take photographs after that date which is allegedly when the pool photo was taken. So it - or elements of it - definitely could not have been taken later but imo that is not so.

Together with Gerry's precise time of 14.29 and Kate's inability to use the camera after that time the picture is neatly frozen at a very specific time and place.

We won't even go into the many and pointless changes of clothes Maddie allegedly went through that day.

by skyrocket 11.09.15 17:04

Not sure whether this has been discussed/clarified before - I have tried to read through posts but may have missed it!

It is really bugging me now.

Has anyone explained/does anyone know what is creating the perfect right angled cross shadow on GM's crotch area!

The group are supposed to be sat in the open. Can't figure it out.

Any answers?

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

by Guest 11.09.15 17:33

Looks like the shorts' drawstring to me.

by skyrocket 11.09.15 17:36

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

I think you may well be right - perhaps I need to invest in some glasses!

Cheers for putting me out of my misery so quickly!

by j.rob 12.09.15 6:51

I think the photo looks like a very bad cut and paste job. As is so often the case with dodgy TM photos there is no cohesion within the group being photographed. Neither of the children are engaged with the photographer at all. Why not? Often the photographer will try to alert everyone's attention. Madeleine is seemingly engaged by something or someone off to the right whil Amelie looks into the pool. Despite the three seemingly sitting close together there is no interaction or engagement between them. No focus of attention which you tend to get with genuine group shots.

The only person engaging with the photographer is Gerry and imo his expression tells volumes. He moodily stares at the lens with a look that combines sullenness with what I think is desperation as he hides his eyes behind sunglasses.

This is not a happy holiday snap that is for sure. I wonder why Sean is not featured? . According to kate in her book all five of them were there so it is a somewhat strange omission. I presume that despite what kate and Gerry claim he was somewhere else at the day and time that photo was allegedly taken. And this may be verifiable by third parties.

So what was really happening at 2.29pm on that fateful Thursday? I dread to think.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.09.15 7:26

j.rob wrote:I think the photo looks like a very bad cut and paste job.

REPLY: Not to the majority of us here. And certainly not to two world-recognised photographic experts consulted by PeterMac. They were clear; there was not a trace of photoshopping on the 'Last Photo' - and both conducted forensic tests, e.g. on the shadows, which confirmed that this was a genuine photo with no photoshopping. Just like some did on the 'Playground Photo' thread, saying 'my eyes tell me this', or 'my eyes tell me that'. I don't think most of us need you to take us backwards, when by common consent this is a genuine photograph but with strong evidence that it may have been taken on the Sunday, or possibly the Monday. And that harmonises with other evidence about the events of that week.

As is so often the case with dodgy TM photos

REPLY: Who says there are lots of 'dodgy TM photos'? Only a handful of people who elevate the impressions of their eyes above all else. No convincing case has been made that ANY of the McCanns' photos have been photoshopped, though there are a considerable number of us who have still have major queries about the 'Tennis Balls Photo'

there is no cohesion within the group being photographed. Neither of the children are engaged with the photographer at all. Why not? Often the photographer will try to alert everyone's attention. Madeleine is seemingly engaged by something or someone off to the right while Amelie looks into the pool. Despite the three seemingly sitting close together there is no interaction or engagement between them. No focus of attention which you tend to get with genuine group shots.

The only person engaging with the photographer is Gerry

REPLY: So all photographs have to have:
* 'cohesion within the group'?
* 'children being 'engaged with the photographer''?
* 'no interaction or engagement between people on the photograph''?
* 'no focus of attention'?
For a photograph to be 'genuine', in your view, it needs these features?
Sorry - but this is utter nonsense.

and imo his expression tells volumes. He moodily stares at the lens with a look that combines sullenness with what I think is desperation as he hides his eyes behind sunglasses. This is not a happy holiday snap that is for sure.

I wonder why Sean is not featured? According to Kate in her book all five of them were there so it is a somewhat strange omission. I presume that despite what kate and Gerry claim he was somewhere else at the day and time that photo was allegedly taken. And this may be verifiable by third parties.

REPLY: Give me patience. Er...because he's out of shot somewhere. probably with Kate, who took the photograph. Look at the Playground Photo, and Amelia isn't on that. Again, so what? She is probably playing somewhere else.

So what was really happening at 2.29pm on that fateful Thursday? I dread to think.

REPLY: Clearly, if the Last Photo was taken on the Sunday, we don't know, because we haven't been told the truth about what the McCanns were doing at 2.29pm on 3rd May

by Guest 12.09.15 7:35

j.rob has been around this circle with us before.

It's boring.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.09.15 8:30

BlueBag wrote:j.rob has been around this circle with us before.

It's boring.

So if this was 'Just A Minute', he'd be ruled out for 'Repetition'? yes

AND 'Deviation'? yes

by skyrocket 12.09.15 10:29

@j.rob - don't listen to them!

There are 2 camps here with the photoshopping argument - from all the posts, neither is in a particular minority I would hasten to add.

You and I are in one. You know the ones in the other.

I have (fair) comments to make but I have a feeling they will be moderated out - so how to get the point across, mmmmm?!

I am still waiting to see any 'expert' or 'forensic' evidence for us all to see and judge. That would end the discussion wouldn't it - simple. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but no one suitably qualified has answered all my doubts yet. I like to learn new skills. So basically, it's stalemate. But, that shouldn't negate anyone being allowed to express their opinions without the fear of, what comes across as but I accept may not be, a concerted verbal onslaught. The doubters don't appearing to be jumping down anyones throats.

Last line deleted. Mod.

by Liz Eagles 12.09.15 10:40

skyrocket wrote:@j.rob - don't listen to them!

There are 2 camps here with the photoshopping argument - from all the posts, neither is in a particular minority I would hasten to add.

You and I are in one. You know the ones in the other.

I have (fair) comments to make but I have a feeling they will be moderated out - so how to get the point across, mmmmm?!

I am still waiting to see any 'expert' or 'forensic' evidence for us all to see and judge. That would end the discussion wouldn't it - simple. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but no one suitably qualified has answered all my doubts yet. I like to learn new skills. So basically, it's stalemate. But, that shouldn't negate anyone being allowed to express their opinions without the fear of, what comes across as but I accept may not be, a concerted verbal onslaught. The doubters don't appearing to be jumping down anyones throats.

I think @j.rob, we will have to put with being ridiculed; patronised and having sarcasm thrown at us. I know what I call it.

Rational people who have been on this forum for a few years have seen all amount of argument/debate/disruption/wind-ups/reincarnations of those with multiple IP addresses who write in the same style.

I'm listening to this right now.

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

by skyrocket 12.09.15 10:53

@ Aquila

You've lost me. Don't get the link either. As the comment was dirctly linked to my comment could you just clarify. Thanks.

by Liz Eagles 12.09.15 10:58

skyrocket wrote:@ Aquila

You've lost me. Don't get the link either. As the comment was dirctly linked to my comment could you just clarify. Thanks

Post deleted. Mod.

by Guest 12.09.15 11:01

skyrocket wrote:@j.rob - don't listen to them!

There are 2 camps here with the photoshopping argument - from all the posts, neither is in a particular minority I would hasten to add.

You and I are in one. You know the ones in the other.

I have (fair) comments to make but I have a feeling they will be moderated out - so how to get the point across, mmmmm?!

I am still waiting to see any 'expert' or 'forensic' evidence for us all to see and judge. That would end the discussion wouldn't it - simple. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - but no one suitably qualified has answered all my doubts yet. I like to learn new skills. So basically, it's stalemate. But, that shouldn't negate anyone being allowed to express their opinions without the fear of, what comes across as but I accept may not be, a concerted verbal onslaught. The doubters don't appearing to be jumping down anyones throats.

I think @j.rob, we will have to put with being ridiculed; patronised and having sarcasm thrown at us. I know what I call it.

No, skyrocket. Fair comments will not be 'moderated out'. Any posts which break forum rules will be edited.

by Guest 12.09.15 11:09

Posters - stay on topic otherwise posts will be deleted. Ta.

by **PeterMac** 12.09.15 15:38

This was the response from an acknowledged expert
I am acknowleged NOT to be an expert, so I rely on those who are.

I have taken an initial look at the image.
The artifacts eluded to in the pdf document that you sent are simply JPEG compression artifacts
(as described here: http://www.fourandsix.com/blog/2011/6/29/that-looks-fake.html).
If you magnify other parts of the image you will see similar artifacts.
I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent -- they are.
I see no other anomalies in the photo.
So, at first glance, I see no evidence of photo tampering.

I will add that it is fairly easy to change dates in an image's metadata or for these dates to be wrong.
As such these dates should not be solely relied upon.

regards,
* * * * *
Professor
* * * * * College

No reason why anyone else should agree with him, of course !

by skyrocket 12.09.15 16:01

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

Thank you very much for that - very interesting. Much more concrete information. I think some of the problem may be that newcomers like myself may not always pick up on all of the info from previous threads, despite efforts to read through carefully. Heck of a lot has been said over the years.

A response such as yours above (content and manner) is what I'd hoped to receive. I feel like sending you one of these for restoring my faith airkiss

!

by **PeterMac** 12.09.15 17:24

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Thank you very much for that - very interesting. Much more concrete information. I think some of the problem may be that newcomers like myself may not always pick up on all of the info from previous threads, despite efforts to read through carefully. Heck of a lot has been said over the years.
A response such as yours above (content and manner) is what I'd hoped to receive. I feel like sending you one of these for restoring my faith !

Another issue is that this is the first time I have published that particular response on the forum.
Much has been done over the past 8 years away from the forum for obvious reasons, and has been sent to Grange, the PJ and Dr Amaral, amongst others.

by **Nina** 12.09.15 17:26

PeterMac wrote:
skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Thank you very much for that - very interesting. Much more concrete information. I think some of the problem may be that newcomers like myself may not always pick up on all of the info from previous threads, despite efforts to read through carefully. Heck of a lot has been said over the years.
A response such as yours above (content and manner) is what I'd hoped to receive. I feel like sending you one of these for restoring my faith !

Another issue is that this is the first time I have published that particular response on the forum.
Much has been done over the past 8 years away from the forum for obvious reasons, and has been sent to Grange, the PJ and Dr Amaral, amongst others.

by skyrocket 12.09.15 17:48

@ PeterMac

Well I am appreciative that you have posted it now and I fully understand that some information is best kept under wraps.

by Guest 12.09.15 20:16

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

Thank you very much for that - very interesting. Much more concrete information. I think some of the problem may be that newcomers like myself may not always pick up on all of the info from previous threads, despite efforts to read through carefully. Heck of a lot has been said over the years.

A response such as yours above (content and manner) is what I'd hoped to receive. I feel like sending you one of these for restoring my faith !

This subject has been broached numerous times in the past and repeated on occasions in more recent times, since you joined the forum. Reasons have been given as to why the content of 'last photograph' is considered to be authentic and that includes due deference to PeterMac, by Tony Bennett if I remember correctly, for consulting the expertise of one or more professionals. The information posted by PeterMac today, although understandably not before confirmed by source, has been related as you will be aware if, as you say, you have skimmed through the threads. Can't be sure off the top of my head but I believe Tony Bennett actually replied to one of your posts to this effect.

Still, no matter, just as long as you now understand the status quo and can perhaps focus on the more important issue of when the photograph was taken and why so much emphasis has been placed on the date and time by team McCann. Now that is interesting!

ETA: The vertical line on GM's crotch that you questioned is, I believe, his dongler!

by skyrocket 12.09.15 22:38

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - yes, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] came to the same conclusion re: the vertical line/cross! Thank you for that.

Re: the photographic experts info from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I prefer to make my own decisions about things and this helped a lot. As I stated, I'm very grateful for his post earlier. Yes TB did bring up the point of the experts but it was rather a case of this is how it is, accept it.

I agree, the fact that TM felt it necessary to stress the time and date is very intriguing, but can I just add that one person's perception of status quo is not always anothers.

Re: 'Just as long as you now understand' now let me see, do I - come on, you can't be serious! big grin

by Guest 12.09.15 23:45

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - yes, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] came to the same conclusion re: the vertical line/cross! Thank you for that.

Re: the photographic experts info from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I prefer to make my own decisions about things and this helped a lot. As I stated, I'm very grateful for his post earlier. Yes TB did bring up the point of the experts but it was rather a case of this is how it is, accept it.

I agree, the fact that TM felt it necessary to stress the time and date is very intriguing, but can I just add that one person's perception of status quo is not always anothers.

Re: 'Just as long as you now understand' now let me see, do I - come on, you can't be serious!

So let me see, you're not prepared to listen to a well respected member of this forum who is passing on information from another well respected forum member who is passing on information from a professional - yet, despite being very interested in the professional opinion of the expert now provided by the well respected member of this forum, you still prefer to make up your own mind? Have I got that right?

That actually explains a hell of a lot!

by worriedmum 13.09.15 0:52

Back on topic, can I ask if there is a version of the last photo which shows Madeleine's hand as well as her arm?

The reason I ask is that on the tennis ball photo, taken earlier in the week, she had what is described as a localised sunburn quite visible on her wrist/forearm area. So this should show up on the (later) pool photo. Before anyone points out that this is the other arm, I have been told that the tennis picture has been shown facing the other way in I think it was Dutch newspapers.

by ROSA 13.09.15 4:32

The last photo. Both Gerry and Amelie have tans and look like they have spent time in the sun, and they look very hot and sweaty. But Maddie has quite a cool look about her and she is very pale .

by **Tony Bennett** 13.09.15 7:31

ROSA wrote:The last photo. Both Gerry and Amelie have tans and look like they have spent time in the sun, and they look very hot and sweaty. But Maddie has quite a cool look about her and she is very pale .

@ ROSA I am sorry to be blunt and no doubt appear rude, but this is more utter rubbish, again from someone who thinks this is 'what my eyes tell me'.

I think it would be a good idea if you had a thorough look at the 'Last Photo' threads on here before commenting further. If you did, there you would find images of Gerry McCann which clearly contrast his relatively untanned look on this photograph with him looking much more tanned at the end of the week.

That is just one of several clear lines of evidence suggesting that the 'Last Photo' might have been taken earlier in the week.

I disagree with your interpretation of how pale/suntanned each person looks in the Last Photo, but that is not the point.

A world-recognised expert on photographs and photoshopping has ruled, after conducting forensic tests on the photograph, that it is genuine, one of the main reasons being that the short shadows on the three individuals are 100% consistent with each other in length and direction, in a way that is impossible to fake. The same goes for all the other shadows in the Last Photo.

Any moment now you will morph into missbeetle and say 'Maddie wasn't there that week'.

Incidentally, where is missbeetle? She hasn't been back to explain why she thinks, against the evidence, that Madeleine wasn't in Praia da Luz that week.

@ missbeetle

Hall-ooooooo???