Re: Another look at the Last photo

by HelenMeg 15.10.14 11:17

So surely Gerry and daughters must've been sitting somewhere at bottom right of the photo in the above posts. It cant be the same palm tree, surely? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Gerry etc must have been facing tennis courts

by **PeterMac** 15.10.14 11:19

juliet wrote:Sorry PeterMac but I cannot believe in this picture. But I won't carry on about it on your thread.

No problem. I don't believe in the picture, and my research leads me to the conclusion that it was not taken on 3/5/7
I am no expert on photoshopping, which I why I went to two people who are.
They may of course be wrong.
But even if it has been photoshopped, the "background' photo and all the bits which may have been added, could still not have been taken on 3/5/7,
so I don't think there is the thickness of cigarette paper between us
It is still a forgery - it PURPORTS to be something it isn't. It tells a lie about itself.

by aiyoyo 15.10.14 11:23

If experts views can be wrong, what hope is there for amateurs to be right?

by **PeterMac** 15.10.14 11:27

HelenMeg wrote:So surely Gerry and daughters must've been sitting somewhere at bottom right of the photo in the above posts. It cant be the same palm tree, surely? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Gerry etc must have been facing tennis courts

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

Now look at this. Kate is the blue box, Gerry and the two children are the red oval, purple line is the line of sight, which goes past the tree, then crosses some more terra cotta tiles, before hitting the bougainvillea covered wall.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

by Hicks 15.10.14 11:33

PeterMac wrote:
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.

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

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.

Surely the last photo reflects that they were all sat on the edge of the main pool (facing the cliffs) in front on the tree with the white wall-red flowers- almost behind them. I can't see anything wrong with the pool photo, but I suspect the date and time were changed, possible on that all important first trip back to the UK.

The tennis photo imo is very odd, and we can't get a clear picture on who actually took the photo. Was it Kate or Jane Tanner?

by Guest 15.10.14 11:41

Hicks wrote:I can't see anything wrong with the pool photo, but I suspect the date and time were changed, possible on that all important first trip back to the UK

100% agree.

by pennylane 15.10.14 11:43

BlueBag wrote:
Hicks wrote:I can't see anything wrong with the pool photo, but I suspect the date and time were changed, possible on that all important first trip back to the UK
100% agree.

Ditto!

by Snifferdog 15.10.14 11:44

HelenMeg wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
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.

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

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.
Dont understand how the Last photo could have been taken where the children are sitting at the edge of the pool in the above photo........? The background of the last photo shows white wall covered in flowers. Surely Gerry and daughters could not have been sitting where the children are sitting in the above photo. There is no white wall behind them whereas there is in the last photo? Help - I may have misinterpreted things..

I don't think you have misinterpreted anything here Helenmeg. If they were sitting where the photo says they were, taking into account the umbrella pole and the palm tree, the bougainvillea should not be showing directly behind Gerry, Amelie and Madeleine.

by HelenMeg 15.10.14 11:45

PeterMac wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:So surely Gerry and daughters must've been sitting somewhere at bottom right of the photo in the above posts. It cant be the same palm tree, surely? Correct me if I'm wrong.
Gerry etc must have been facing tennis courts

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

Now look at this. Kate is the blue box, Gerry and the two children are the red oval, purple line is the line of sight, which goes past the tree, then crosses some more terra cotta tiles, before hitting the bougainvillea covered wall.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

Thanks - although I am amazed because the Last photo gives the impression the white wall is not far behind them .... also the sun loungers behind the tree look as though there is not much between them and wall in Last photo! I'm sure you are right but i'm not totally convinced from what i am seeing

Maybe just an illusion...

by Snifferdog 15.10.14 11:56

Now that PeterMac has posted the diagram I can see that they do fit in where they are supposed to be in the photo, but as mentioned, the date may have been altered imo.

by juliet 15.10.14 13:16

Agree, thanks PeterMac.

by **PeterMac** 15.10.14 13:56

Now add what I left out.

20 May - Gerry returns to UK
22 May - Gerry flies back to PdL WITH MITCHELL
22 May - Philomena flies out to Pdl
23 May - Last Photo sent to French Agency
24 May - Last Photo released to the world's Press with the stuff about One hour out, one hour our, Pieces of Eight, look over here

Any pattern emerging here ?
Could it be that the very FIRST thing Mitchell did has stuffed them ?

by **PeterMac** 15.10.14 16:23

pennylane wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Hicks wrote:I can't see anything wrong with the pool photo, but I suspect the date and time were changed, possible on that all important first trip back to the UK
100% agree.
Ditto!

For the record, with names redacted, though they were supplied to OG in the original which went to 6 appendices and 30 pages of references . . . !

20.1 I have taken an initial look at the image. The artefacts alluded to in the pdf document that you sent are simply JPEG compression artefacts (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 artefacts. 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,
Y Y Y Y

20.2 “From what I saw I couldn't see anything that would lead me to believe beyond reasonable doubt it had been doctored. The fringing mentioned can be caused by auto sharpening used in consumer digital cameras to make 'better' or 'sharper' images. These artefacts can often be made worse from image compression algorithms out of photoshop or other image manipulation software.”

I am trying to find the youTube copy of the 'Paint pouring down the factory walls" advert for, I think, a car for us to understand the level of expertise.
And it was the Prof.'s remarks about the EXIF which kept set me off in a different direction, with the result we see.

by aiyoyo 15.10.14 16:27

PeterMac wrote:Now add what I left out.

20 May - Gerry returns to UK
22 May - Gerry flies back to PdL WITH MITCHELL
22 May - Philomena flies out to Pdl
23 May - Last Photo sent to French Agency
24 May - Last Photo released to the world's Press with the stuff about One hour out, one hour our, Pieces of Eight, look over here

Any pattern emerging here ?
Could it be that the very FIRST thing Mitchell did has stuffed them ?

Given the circumstances surrounding the release, there is something seriously dodgy about late production for release.
Mitchell definitely has a hand in this retrospect release, it has his hallmarks all over it.

by Hicks 15.10.14 16:53

aiyoyo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Now add what I left out.

20 May - Gerry returns to UK
22 May - Gerry flies back to PdL WITH MITCHELL
22 May - Philomena flies out to Pdl
23 May - Last Photo sent to French Agency
24 May - Last Photo released to the world's Press with the stuff about One hour out, one hour our, Pieces of Eight, look over here

Any pattern emerging here ?
Could it be that the very FIRST thing Mitchell did has stuffed them ?

Given the circumstances surrounding the release, there is something seriously dodgy about late production for release.
Mitchell definitely has a hand in this retrospect release, it has his hallmarks all over it.

I agree...but why? That question! If only we knew why Mitchell is in the picture, acting on behalf of his masters . Look at it this way, one missing child, due to neglectful parents. Valid questions about their actions and behaviour, as noted by a diplomat. Evidence from specialist dogs...yet the McCann's have all the backing from high up-possibly 'men in suits' involved from the very beginning - All the funding needed. Has there ever been a similar case to date that can boast the same commitment from the British establishment? I can't think of one.

Someone or something is being kept out of the picture. It is the only explanation that fits imo.

by aiyoyo 15.10.14 17:37

I suspect the answer is probably a very straight forward one.
No conspiracy, no big cover up.
The Mcs got very lucky with the helps and supports because they were white middle class, being doctors to top it off, a profession highly regarded, and on that basis alone that garners them the unprecedented levels of support because no one wants to believe a pair of doctors are capable of crime against their own child.

by canada12 15.10.14 17:43

aiyoyo wrote:I suspect the answer is probably a very straight forward one.
No conspiracy, no big cover up.
The Mcs got very lucky with the helps and supports because they were white middle class, being doctors to top it off, a profession highly regarded, and on that basis alone that garners them the unprecedented levels of support because no one wants to believe a pair of doctors are capable of crime against their own child.

Plus they really played the "we're being fitted up by the corrupt and inept Portuguese police" card.

by The....truth 15.10.14 17:57

Thanks to PeterMac for excellent work, presented simply, clearly. And unignorable.

I think it is probably safe just to add a small common sense observation, which I hope will not provoke the ridiculous, in my view, twin socked photo analyst to emerge from his swampy place to argue with himself again. If it does I apologies in advance.

My comment is that you simply cannot get reflections in reflective sunglasses turning 90 degrees of their own accord. Impossible, so the photo of the glasses has been turned and the evidence is there in plain sight, so to speak.

by juliet 15.10.14 20:05

Is aiyoyo Pat Brown? Nothing to see here but a panicked reaction to an unfortunate accident?...of course the Labour prime minister told the diplomats to shut their mouths about the very dodgy middle class McCanns...and sent out the big guns from risk control, media management, professional liars within hours.

by **PeterMac** 15.10.14 20:50

Thetruth wrote:
My comment is that you simply cannot get reflections in reflective sunglasses turning 90 degrees of their own accord. Impossible, so the photo of the glasses has been turned and the evidence is there in plain sight, so to speak.

It bothers me. But I am not an expert, and it does not seem to worry them.
So I concentrate on what is before our eyes.
THE DATE WAS ALTERED.

Privately I am fairly sure I know know who did it, allegedly and only of course a ridiculous and un-evidenced opinion,
But it does neatly tie in with the the dates of sudden return to the UK and the sudden return to PdL
and the sudden arrival of another family member in PdL, and the sudden release of the photo . . .
And with one or two other things the world does unfortunately know about the extended family.

All total nonsense, of course,
Who could possibly believe that when Gerry said he had no other photos in his possession ,
he did not include his WIFE in that statement, who was sitting outside the door in the same Police station, doing whatever she was doing
on ANOTHER camera.
Or so Kate tells us, so it must be true !

On this occasion, for once, Both may be telling the truth. ! ! !

by Guest 15.10.14 21:12

Thetruth wrote:Thanks to PeterMac for excellent work, presented simply, clearly. And unignorable.

I think it is probably safe just to add a small common sense observation, which I hope will not provoke the ridiculous, in my view, twin socked photo analyst to emerge from his swampy place to argue with himself again. If it does I apologies in advance.

My comment is that you simply cannot get reflections in reflective sunglasses turning 90 degrees of their own accord. Impossible, so the photo of the glasses has been turned and the evidence is there in plain sight, so to speak.

Under certain circumstances it is possible. I remember Professor Plum noticing something similar happening to him on another thread. Here's his post:

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Just a quickie... Ref the endless discussion of how the reflection of pool edge / water in GMs glasses proves it was 'shopped.... Here's a picture I took in my garden a while back. I happened to look at it today and was struck by the apparent impossibility of the reflection of the deck edge on the plastic of the guitar pickguard. The reflection of the wooden boards is rotated 90 degrees like GM's 'pool edge' yet it seems to make no sense.

If that was in a 'suspect' picture related to this case, I'll bet nobody could explain it either. But there you have it.

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

by Guest 15.10.14 21:18

Dee Coy wrote:
Thetruth wrote:Thanks to PeterMac for excellent work, presented simply, clearly. And unignorable.

I think it is probably safe just to add a small common sense observation, which I hope will not provoke the ridiculous, in my view, twin socked photo analyst to emerge from his swampy place to argue with himself again. If it does I apologies in advance.

My comment is that you simply cannot get reflections in reflective sunglasses turning 90 degrees of their own accord. Impossible, so the photo of the glasses has been turned and the evidence is there in plain sight, so to speak.

Under certain circumstances it is possible. I remember Professor Plum noticing something similar happening to him on another thread. Here's his post:

ProfessorPPlum wrote:Just a quickie... Ref the endless discussion of how the reflection of pool edge / water in GMs glasses proves it was 'shopped.... Here's a picture I took in my garden a while back. I happened to look at it today and was struck by the apparent impossibility of the reflection of the deck edge on the plastic of the guitar pickguard. The reflection of the wooden boards is rotated 90 degrees like GM's 'pool edge' yet it seems to make no sense.

If that was in a 'suspect' picture related to this case, I'll bet nobody could explain it either. But there you have it.

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

That's Jabba the Hut!

by canada12 15.10.14 21:21

PeterMac wrote:
Thetruth wrote:
My comment is that you simply cannot get reflections in reflective sunglasses turning 90 degrees of their own accord. Impossible, so the photo of the glasses has been turned and the evidence is there in plain sight, so to speak.

It bothers me. But I am not an expert, and it does not seem to worry them.
So I concentrate on what is before our eyes.
THE DATE WAS ALTERED.

Privately I am fairly sure I know know who did it, allegedly and only of course a ridiculous and un-evidenced opinion,
But it does neatly tie in with the the dates of sudden return to the UK and the sudden return to PdL
and the sudden arrival of another family member in PdL, and the sudden release of the photo . . .
And with one or two other things the world does unfortunately know about the extended family.

All total nonsense, of course,
Who could possibly believe that when Gerry said he had no other photos in his possession ,
he did not include his WIFE in that statement, who was sitting outside the door in the same Police station, doing whatever she was doing
on ANOTHER camera.
Or so Kate tells us, so it must be true !

On this occasion, for once, Both may be telling the truth. ! ! !

PM, I wonder if the two experts you consulted were busy looking at the artifacts and things which would have been leftover from photoshopping, rather than things which looked ok, but are logically impossible...? Hence they may explain the solid tan coloured line which runs all the way down Madeleine's arm, past her wrist, with no indentation where her wrist should be, as an anomaly of compression, etc... but perhaps they didn't actually look at the reflection in the sunglasses to see if it made sense...? Just a thought :-)

by sammyc 15.10.14 22:30

@PeterMac. Could you be thinking of the Sony Bravia TV advert rather than a car advert ( Fiat Brava)?

by **PeterMac** 16.10.14 7:49

sammyc wrote:@PeterMac. Could you be thinking of the Sony Bravia TV advert rather than a car advert ( Fiat Brava)?

I think that was the one with the huge block of flats in Sheffield.
It wasn't that one, it was a derelict factory block in, I believe Manchester, with a metal fire escape, and the paint got fired at it from left to right - obviously !

by The....truth 16.10.14 8:13

@PeterMac

I completely agree with what you have done and presented.
It is enough to nail it.

I really do not intend to awaken the two page pretend techie pshop posters.

But it so irritates me that obvious wrongs have to defended, or that we have to pretend that wrong is right, in this case.

I will just point out that the front page of this site has a photo with reflective sunglasses, once more full on to the camera. Which way round do they reflect reality ? The right way or the wrong way ! ? Only Mcglasses can reach the spot and spin the world.

No more sunglasses posts from me . Just to say once more, job very well done PM.

by HelenMeg 16.10.14 10:37

It bothers me that Gerry appears to 'float' in the Last Photo however why focus on the small puzzling features of the photo (that we cant seem to prove ) when it can clearly be shown that the photo is fraudulent due to the timing (camera Exif data) being altered. Much easier - much better.

The point made about the wind is important as well as the general cloud cover. Add that to the timing of the appearance of the Last Photo, the great emphasis on 'time that photo was taken', the clothes, sunglasses story, achillees heel, tennis playing, - then it is clear that the photo was taken on another day.

It has to be said that on a cloudy day you can get nice hot spells and bright sun shine but they are fleeting and you would dress according to the cloud cover in general.

by **PeterMac** 16.10.14 13:34

HelenMeg wrote:
It has to be said that on a cloudy day you can get nice hot spells and bright sun shine but they are fleeting and you would dress according to the cloud cover in general.

EXACTLY !

by j.rob 16.10.14 13:54

aiyoyo wrote:If experts views can be wrong, what hope is there for amateurs to be right?

Just because someone calls themself an 'expert' it doesn't mean that they are always right. And people are paid handsomely for coming up with a particular theory or version of events, even if it is untruthful .

by j.rob 16.10.14 14:05

aiyoyo wrote:
juliet wrote:I don't want to derail this thread. Perhaps you could start another one if you really want to know!

NOPE! Thank you very much, I don't really want to know, because I can see now where you are leading it, judging by your new thread on Gerry's passport.
So you believe starting a new thread on a non-issue is not derailing ?

Oh Lordy (excuse me)!

I don't believe anything about this photo either. But why is that derailing the thread? It's about the last photo?

And why is Gerry's passport photo necessarily a 'non-issue'?

Confused.

Latest topics