Re: Another look at the Last photo

by skyrocket 13.09.15 20:37

@ Ladyinred - I know but @Tony Bennett did.

As your questions overlapped I took the liberty of giving a joint response. Perhaps I should have made it clear that you didn't ask for an explanation of my views whereas TB did. smilie

by Guest 13.09.15 20:40

skyrocket wrote:@ Ladyinred - I know but @Tony Bennett did.

As your questions overlapped I took the liberty of giving a joint response. Perhaps I should have made it clear that you didn't ask for an explanation of my views whereas TB did.

OK, thanks again!

by aiyoyo 13.09.15 21:07

parapono wrote:Thanks for all the explanations. It left me with a new question though.
It's about the reports sent to Operation Grange about the last photo.
Do they have the research and the name of the researchers?
I always presumed so, but after reading I'm in doubt now.
Kindest regards
parapono

Am inclined to believe the document from the expert given to the OG was wholesome, identities of experts not redacted.

Here we are talking about evidence supplied to Police after all which the police are obliged to treat with confidentiality.

by aiyoyo 13.09.15 21:49

cbeagle wrote:
Isn't that information from a professional hearsay, or has said professional ever stated in public their opinion of the photo?

Depends on what you mean by hearsay.

Can one regard expert's opinion as hearsay ?

The value of the info from the expert is something for the police to decide how they would like to treat it.

If the info was supplied to the Police (which I believe it was) it's up to the Police to decide it's value or take it further with the expert.

I won't term it as hearsay as such just because the expert has not stated their opinion in the public. Experts are used because of their expertise/skills in their field of specialization and their opinions are worthy of certain weight in a court of law.

by cbeagle 13.09.15 22:09

aiyoyo wrote:
cbeagle wrote:
Isn't that information from a professional hearsay, or has said professional ever stated in public their opinion of the photo?

Depends on what you mean by hearsay.

Can one regard expert's opinion as hearsay ?

I meant in the context of this forum. An expert's opinion is definitely hearsay when it's someone just saying they talked to an unnamed expert and reports the expert said something.

In this case it I'm satisfied it's not just an empty claim by a poster.

I believe it's good to try and understand claims by posters, rather than just accept them at face value, people have been known to be less that truthful on the internet. big grin

by **PeterMac** 13.09.15 22:58

parapono wrote:Thanks for all the explanations. It left me with a new question though.
It's about the reports sent to Operation Grange about the last photo.
Do they have the research and the name of the researchers?
I always presumed so, but after reading I'm in doubt now.
Kindest regards
parapono

Yes they do.
They have full details and full contact information for both the experts concerned.
What they have chosen to do with this is anyone's guess !
The fact that they received it was acknowledged with their usual automated response.

by aiyoyo 14.09.15 4:21

PeterMac wrote:
parapono wrote:Thanks for all the explanations. It left me with a new question though.
It's about the reports sent to Operation Grange about the last photo.
Do they have the research and the name of the researchers?
I always presumed so, but after reading I'm in doubt now.
Kindest regards
parapono

Yes they do.
They have full details and full contact information for both the experts concerned.
What they have chosen to do with this is anyone's guess !
The fact that they received it was acknowledged with their usual automated response.

My guess is like everything else, they've done nothing with it.
If they'd you'd have heard from the experts.

by ROSA 14.09.15 5:09

Its probably 8 years to late to have effect now even with Petermacs hard work and expert advise the McCann's haven't fooled everyone

by Guest 14.09.15 6:27

PeterMac wrote:
parapono wrote:Thanks for all the explanations. It left me with a new question though.
It's about the reports sent to Operation Grange about the last photo.
Do they have the research and the name of the researchers?
I always presumed so, but after reading I'm in doubt now.
Kindest regards
parapono

Yes they do.
They have full details and full contact information for both the experts concerned.
What they have chosen to do with this is anyone's guess !
The fact that they received it was acknowledged with their usual automated response.

Thanks PeterMac.

by j.rob 15.09.15 11:24

There are massive discrepancies in the statements of the McCanns and Tapas over what was going on that week and when Madeleine was playing mini-tennis and when anyone last saw her. These are, of course, huge red flags that someone or several people are trying to cover up what really happened that week.

I also happen to think that the 'piece of sunburn' on Madeleine's arm is something of a red flag and could possibly mean she had bruising on her arm which would, of course, be consistent with a certain scenario.

Given these massive discrepancies are a huge red flag that the McCanns and Tapas are not being honest, then it is hardly surprising that the photos released of that week which allegedly show Madeleine may also not be what they purport to be. And may not be an honest reflection of what Madeleine was really doing that week.

The McCanns and Tapas have lied, imo, and there is no reason to believe that their photos/filming/images would not also be deceptive.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2966-video-4-mini-tennis-discrepancies

by skyrocket 15.09.15 11:28

Can anyone enlighten me as to who/what www.thektph.org.uk is/was?

Thanks

by Amy Dean 15.09.15 12:15

This, maybe?

https://www.flickr.com/groups/thektph/

by skyrocket 15.09.15 12:24

@ Amy Dean

Thanks very much for that - I'm sure that you're correct and it ties in with the context. high5

by **Tony Bennett** 15.09.15 12:59

j.rob wrote:There are massive discrepancies in the statements of the McCanns and Tapas over what was going on that week and when Madeleine was playing mini-tennis and when anyone last saw her. These are, of course, huge red flags that someone or several people are trying to cover up what really happened that week.

A very fair point

I also happen to think that the 'piece of sunburn' on Madeleine's arm is something of a red flag and could possibly mean she had bruising on her arm which would, of course, be consistent with a certain scenario.

I think you are referring to the 'Tennis Balls Photo' here - and if so, then that is one about which some people have legitimate concerns. Some say it is Madeleine's head but not her body on that photo

Given these massive discrepancies are a huge red flag that the McCanns and Tapas are not being honest, then it is hardly surprising that the photos released of that week which allegedly show Madeleine may also not be what they purport to be. And may not be an honest reflection of what Madeleine was really doing that week.

Another fair point

The McCanns and Tapas have lied, imo, and there is no reason to believe that their photos/filming/images would not also be deceptive.

But of course some may be genuine, some may not, others may be genuine but the date changed. Each one needs the patient analysis we are trying to give them...and that way we will edge nearer and nearer to building up, to coin a phrase, 'a true picture' of what went on that week

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2966-video-4-mini-tennis-discrepancies

by skyrocket 15.09.15 13:02

@ Amy Dean

Quite interesting - a couple of shots I hadn't seen before, including MBM on bicycle next to GM.

This was given by Albym as the original source of the high definition 'last photo'. The link given no longer works and the current version of the 'last photo' on the TheKTPH.org Flikr site does not have any of the meta data still in place.

The only photo I have found so far with any metadata still showing is the 3 Mc children lying on the bed (this is another one that looks very dodgy to me). Even this one only has a couple of lines of data, nothing like the full set of exif/signatures etc available on the high def version of the 'last photo', which is still available to look at in detail.

@PeterMac (or anyone else in the know) - do you know if there is a record of what the Mc's actually stated about the time discrepany on the 'last photo'? I'm trying to get at whether they said the camera time was set incorrectly or whether they stated that the time was out because of a +01.00 hour difference due to time zones i.e. that the camera was correct for UK time, but not Portugal. I realise there is no time zone difference between Portugal and the UK.
Thanks

by aiyoyo 15.09.15 14:52

skyrocket wrote:
@PeterMac (or anyone else in the know) - do you know if there is a record of what the Mc's actually stated about the time discrepany on the 'last photo'? I'm trying to get at whether they said the camera time was set incorrectly or whether they stated that the time was out because of a +01.00 hour difference due to time zones i.e. that the camera was correct for UK time, but not Portugal. I realise there is no time zone difference between Portugal and the UK.
Thanks

Taken from mccannfiles.com website

The last photo was released on 24 May 2007

It has been widely accepted, or at least reported, that the 'last photograph' of Madeleine - beside the kiddie's pool in the Ocean Club - was taken by Kate McCann, using her own digital camera.

It has also been reported that the picture was taken at 2.29pm on 03 May 2007. Kate's camera clock is said to have been one hour out, so the display reads 1.29pm. However, there are no versions of the picture, so far released, that are able to confirm this.

Although Portugal and the UK share the same time, it is reported that the camera clock was one hour out as Kate had not adjusted it after the change to British summer time on 25 March 2007.

According to various reports the last photo was taken by Kate.

I don't get why Kate volunteered info on her camera clock being one hour out.

If the Police had questioned her about the time of last photo, you can understand her having to answer the question, but she wasn't asked by the Police. So why did she volunteer the info when that is not of relevance to anything.

The significance of the last photo is to prove she was well as alive at the date and time shown on the photo. If her reported missing time coincides or runs close to time on last photo then one hour out on the camera clock would become important info the Police need to know. Since there is a 8 hours (thereabout) lapse between time of disappearance and time on last photo why did Kate feel she needs to tell the Press about her wrong camera clock? Kate never volunteers info on any crucial aspect surrounding the disappearance so why did she volunteer this info that isn't crucial nor has any relevance to anything else.

The time on the last photo isn't crucial as it proves nothing because there wasn't any independent witness that saw Madeleine at the Pool on that day. David Payne made a deposition he saw MBM alive and well in the evening of the day in question, so the last independent (sort of) witness who saw her alive and well was David Payne.

by kaz 15.09.15 15:53

The time on the last photo isn't crucial as it proves nothing because there wasn't any independent witness that saw Madeleine at the Pool on that day. David Payne made a deposition he saw MBM alive and well in the evening of the day in question, so the last independent (sort of) witness who saw her alive and well was David Payne.

Along with Cat Baker who took her sailing and Fiona Payne who was accompanied by Kate to the crèche on the 3rd . '''Yeah, that, that day, erm, I actually picked Scarlet up with Kate, erm, and I'm trying to think what the time, the times were. I mean, that day we had been sailing, I think we were supposed to be doing wind surfing, but that day the, as I say, the waves were too rough and we ended up …………………….., and she picked up Madeleine and I picked up Scarlet and then we walked back together and that was the only day we ever did, ever did that.''

I find it strange that Madeleine along with the other six or was it seven ( Cat couldn't quite get the numbers right) were taken sailing when it was too rough for wind surfing.
.............................. We were told by Catriona, that in the last days they went to the beach on Tuesday afternoon (01 of May 2007), between 15H30 and 16h30, on Wednesday (the next day) at the same time and on Thursday between 10 and 11h00 ( Cat's interview )

by skyrocket 15.09.15 16:20

@ aiyoyo - cheers for all that.

I agree the time is not crucial in terms of the disappearance but in terms of what TM were possibly up to with this photo, the timestamps shown in the metadata is interesting.

by aiyoyo 15.09.15 18:37

kaz wrote:The time on the last photo isn't crucial as it proves nothing because there wasn't any independent witness that saw Madeleine at the Pool on that day. David Payne made a deposition he saw MBM alive and well in the evening of the day in question, so the last independent (sort of) witness who saw her alive and well was David Payne.

Along with Cat Baker who took her sailing and Fiona Payne who was accompanied by Kate to the crèche on the 3rd . '''Yeah, that, that day, erm, I actually picked Scarlet up with Kate, erm, and I'm trying to think what the time, the times were. I mean, that day we had been sailing, I think we were supposed to be doing wind surfing, but that day the, as I say, the waves were too rough and we ended up …………………….., and she picked up Madeleine and I picked up Scarlet and then we walked back together and that was the only day we ever did, ever did that.''

I find it strange that Madeleine along with the other six or was it seven ( Cat couldn't quite get the numbers right) were taken sailing when it was too rough for wind surfing.
.............................. We were told by Catriona, that in the last days they went to the beach on Tuesday afternoon (01 of May 2007), between 15H30 and 16h30, on Wednesday (the next day) at the same time and on Thursday between 10 and 11h00 ( Cat's interview )

If the kids were taken for sailing in the morning on day in question, then time of last photo is the succeeding one. But that still does not explain why Kate felt the need to feed the Press the exact time the photo was taken when the Press does not have a need to be apprised of such trivial detail that is of no relevance or significance to anything to do with how MBM disappeared.

It has been speculated Kate's intention is to draw attention to the date, rather than the time, but by making a big issue of the time, attention is drawn to the date as well when people look at the metadata.

Given the circumstance surrounding the late appearance of the last photo, 17 days post disappearance, and coming after Gerry had been home to UK, returning to PDL accompanied by newly appointed spokescreature, his sister Philemona taking the next flight after him to PDL for no apparent reason, and the release to the public domain via the French press agency, are all very suspicious circumstances.

Combined that with Kate unnecessary highlight of the wrong time on the camera clock, the sudden late appearance of the pool photo which they termed as "last photo" is highly suspect. There is more than meet the eyes on this photo.

by skyrocket 15.09.15 19:16

I have another question.

I understand from what I've read on here that PeterMac's 2 experts said that it is possible that the EXIF's could have been changed to show a false date/and or time, but there was no way of being certain.

If I've got that wrong please disregard the following.

Can anyone explain why the XMP EXIF metadata shows +01.00 on the 'last photo', if it HASN'T been altered post download?:

XMP EXIF (basically includes any additions to the original camera EXIF:
DateTimeDigitized: 2007-05-03T13:29:51+01:00
DateTimeOriginal: 2007-05-03T13:29:51+01:00

and

EXIF:
DateTimeDigitized: 2007:05:03 13:29:51
DateTimeOriginal: 2007:05:03 13:29:51

Surely, the +01.00 alteration has had to have been added. The camera itself would never add the +01.00 time alteration at time of taking/digitization - it sets the time as per the cameras clock setting, as seen in the second set of stamps.

Doesn't that alone show that the metadata has been changed, with the potential for the date to have been altered.

by kaz 15.09.15 19:50

Wasn't the 3rd ......................the date when this photo was supposedly taken.......the day when Madeleine was feeling exhausted and looking washed out ? I thought at first that could have been a bit of seasickness from the morning's sailing but she looks full of beans here that same afternoon.

by **Tony Bennett** 15.09.15 19:58

kaz wrote:Wasn't the 3rd...the date when this photo was supposedly taken...the day when Madeleine was feeling exhausted and looking washed out? I thought at first that could have been a bit of seasickness from the morning's sailing but she looks full of beans here that same afternoon.

Quite, @ kaz. She was not at all 'washed out' when this 'Last Photo' was probably taken - Sunday lunch-time, 29 April

by aiyoyo 15.09.15 20:18

kaz wrote:Wasn't the 3rd ......................the date when this photo was supposedly taken.......the day when Madeleine was feeling exhausted and looking washed out ? I thought at first that could have been a bit of seasickness from the morning's sailing but she looks full of beans here that same afternoon.

Brilliant observation, hence the justified suspicions that the date was altered.

by Liz Eagles 15.09.15 20:40

aiyoyo wrote:
kaz wrote:Wasn't the 3rd ......................the date when this photo was supposedly taken.......the day when Madeleine was feeling exhausted and looking washed out ? I thought at first that could have been a bit of seasickness from the morning's sailing but she looks full of beans here that same afternoon.

Brilliant observation, hence the justified suspicions that the date was altered.

I'm going to drift slightly off topic here but it's due to the above observation. Mods, please feel free to move to an appropriate topic/ignore/delete as you see fit.

I've read statements regarding the clothes Madeleine was wearing on the day of her disappearance. According to the McCanns she was pictured at the pool just hours before her disappearance in the famous last photo. David Payne distinctly remembers the pyjamas that all three of the McCann children were wearing for instance when he popped his head round/entered/didn't enter apartment 5A. The McCanns themselves made much of the pyjamas in press conferences. Jane Tanner who seems to have better eyesight than the Six Million Dollar Man could make out the pyjamas from yards away in a dimly lit street.

What I don't recall reading in any of the released statements (and I stand to be corrected) is the questioning of the T7, the nannies and any other independent witnesses as to exactly what Madeleine was wearing the very last time they saw her. I've read about the cleaners mentioning flashing sandals for instance but that's not on the day she disappeared.

What Madeleine was wearing - the exact clothing she wore on the day of her disappearance must surely be an important thing?

by aiyoyo 15.09.15 20:59

skyrocket wrote:[size=16][color=#000000]
I understand from what I've read on here that PeterMac's 2 experts said that it is possible that the EXIF's could have been changed to show a false date/and or time, but there was no way of being certain.

The way I interpret the experts' view is - that it is possible to change the EXIF, not that it is possible that the EXIF had been changed. Thereby apprising PeterMac of the knowledge that it is possible to change the EXIF, which laymen may not be aware. Meaning it is easy enough to have the EXIF changed if one wished that to be done. All that is needed to enable that is to have the right software and some skills. We know Philomena's spouse is in the business of photo manipulation arts.

Logically, say if I were to want to tamper a photo to fit my purpose and I don't know how to do it, naturally I would go to someone I trust implicitly and I would want it tampered in such a way that it won't be easy to detect. Photoshopping can easily be tested without needing the original copy, whereas digital data change is hard to detect unless one can get hold of the camera and/or get hold of the original digital copy.

As for the rest you asked, it is too technical for me. Maybe someone technical savy may answer that.