Re: Another look at the Last photo

by aiyoyo 15.09.15 21:15

aquila wrote:
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?

Another brilliant point.
If she had been seen by at least a few people on day in question (3rd May), ie family friends Tapas 7, creche staff, tapas staff etc..then the clothes descriptions have to reconcile.
It's not usual for mothers to put their child in different change of clothes unnecessarily throughout the day especially on limited supply of clothes on holiday. What Madeleine was wearing in the pool photo is suitable for going to afternoon creche.

It's a pity the resort didn't have CCTV cameras anywhere within the premises
A pity also the Police didn't ask witnesses (creche staff, tapas bar staff) that attested to having seen Madeleine on that day to describe the clothes she was wearing.

by kaz 15.09.15 21:59

aquila wrote:

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

I haven't got a copy of 'Madeleine' by Kate McCann but I believe that she says something about her 'eyes following Madeleine all dressed in her new pink Gap clothes and how lovely she looked................'' as she , Fiona and Scarlet walked back from the crèche on the 3rd. Madeleine was skipping on ahead. Presumably these were the same clothes as shown in the 'last photograph.' Perhaps someone should have questioned Cat about this. The little 'get up' is hardly suitable for sailing. The unnecessary overblown and emotional * description of Maddie's clothes that she wore to the crèche that afternoon ties up nicely with the photograph .....................................was that the idea?
* emotional because if my memory serves me well she tied this sentence in with her fear that someone else had been watching Madeleine and thinking the same thing ( how lovely she looked ) and how she felt nauseas at the thought.

by Verdi 15.09.15 22:40

aiyoyo wrote:
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.

Yes, the last photo was released on 24th May 2007, a couple of days after Gerry's return from his trip back to the UK to collect a spin doctor, a pillow case allegedly used by MBM and a photograph to be published on return to Portugal as 'the last' - and attending to other more pressing matters. This trip also coincided with the date Jim Gamble launched the CEOP appeal for holidaymakers to upload their holiday snaps to their new dedicated website, to be later forwarded to the PJ to assist with the official investigation. Whether or not this transpired is a matter of conjecture, I don't recall seeing anything in the PJ files to confirm.

David Payne stated that he saw all three McCann children early evening on 3rd, all in white looking like angels. So what happened to MBM's pinkish patterned pyjamas - did the colour wash out when Kate washed the top earlier in the day to remove the stain she found in the morning? Oh no, of course she was wearing the pinkish pyjamas when she ~~was abducted~~ disappeared, wasn't she? Why did she feel it necessary to mention that little detail. Or even why she asked Madeleine if she was upset because the rest of the group went to the beach that day and 'she wasn't invited'?

Very busy day was 3rd May!

by Verdi 15.09.15 22:46

kaz wrote:
aquila wrote:

What Madeleine was wearing - the exact clothing she wore on the day of her disappearance must surely be an important thing?
I haven't got a copy of 'Madeleine' by Kate McCann but I believe that she says something about her 'eyes following Madeleine all dressed in her new pink Gap clothes and how lovely she looked................'' as she , Fiona and Scarlet walked back from the crèche on the 3rd. Madeleine was skipping on ahead. Presumably these were the same clothes as shown in the 'last photograph.' Perhaps someone should have questioned Cat about this. The little 'get up' is hardly suitable for sailing. The unnecessary overblown and emotional * description of Maddie's clothes that she wore to the crèche that afternoon ties up nicely with the photograph .....................................was that the idea?
* emotional because if my memory serves me well she tied this sentence in with her fear that someone else had been watching Madeleine and thinking the same thing ( how lovely she looked ) and how she felt nauseas at the thought.

That's roughly what she said - if not exactly! Can't access the text of the book at the moment so can't be more precise but considering how excited Kate seemed to be about splashing out on the Gap gear and no doubt Madeleine's excitement about her new outfit, you'd think she would have worn it at the beginning of the holiday - not wait until the end!

by aiyoyo 16.09.15 6:45

kaz wrote:
aquila wrote:

What Madeleine was wearing - the exact clothing she wore on the day of her disappearance must surely be an important thing?
I haven't got a copy of 'Madeleine' by Kate McCann but I believe that she says something about her 'eyes following Madeleine all dressed in her new pink Gap clothes and how lovely she looked................'' as she , Fiona and Scarlet walked back from the crèche on the 3rd. Madeleine was skipping on ahead. Presumably these were the same clothes as shown in the 'last photograph.' Perhaps someone should have questioned Cat about this. The little 'get up' is hardly suitable for sailing. The unnecessary overblown and emotional * description of Maddie's clothes that she wore to the crèche that afternoon ties up nicely with the photograph .....................................was that the idea?
* emotional because if my memory serves me well she tied this sentence in with her fear that someone else had been watching Madeleine and thinking the same thing ( how lovely she looked ) and how she felt nauseas at the thought.

The sailing - was it in the morning or afternoon?

by aiyoyo 16.09.15 6:54

Verdi wrote:
David Payne stated that he saw all three McCann children early evening on 3rd, all in white looking like angels. So what happened to MBM's pinkish patterned pyjamas - did the colour wash out when Kate washed the top earlier in the day to remove the stain she found in the morning? Oh no, of course she was wearing the pinkish pyjamas when she ~~was abducted~~ disappeared, wasn't she?

The discrepancy is so glaring.
Last seen alive dressed in white ready for bed, then disappeared in pink top....
Lies...all lies
DP lied. Kate lied.
They cooked up a story. So there must be a reason for it.

by ROSA 16.09.15 7:04

Kate must be colour blind didn't she say that the last photo dress was apricot its obviously pink.

Last line deleted. Mod.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.09.15 8:48

Verdi wrote:
Yes, the last photo was released on 24th May 2007, a couple of days after Gerry's return from his trip back to the UK to collect a spin doctor, a pillow case allegedly used by MBM and a photograph to be published on return to Portugal as 'the last'...

All very true, @ Verdi - but let us 'complete the picture', so to speak, and remind ourselves that:

* within hours of Gerry McCann flying into Faro Airport on Tuesday 22 May, so did Mrs Rickwood

* perhaps better known as Gerry's sister, Philomena McCann

* whose husband, Mr Tony Rickwood, was publicly exposed on this very forum

* as a 'quicksand fetishist' who spent much of his spare time creating photos of near-naked women drowning in mud, quicksand and water

* and displayed them proudly on a quicksand fetishist website, 'Deviant Art'

* and who therefore had excellent photoshopping skills

* and would have been just the person to alter a camera's EXIF data, such as it is alleged may have happened to the 'Last Photo'

...and perhaps it should also be recalled that Ms Philomena McCann, a.k.a. Mrs Tony Rickwood, Head of Department at Ullapool School, not only married a quicksand fetishist but also personally appointed this man:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8458-former-ullapool-teacher-struck-off-for-indecent-images

...who was later struck of the Teachers' Register

by kaz 16.09.15 8:54

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

The pretty little dress is definitely a 'Sunday Best.' Not the sort of thing you would dress a child in to go to the crèche and sailing ( 10 -11 am ) with the sea being too rough for wind surfing according to FP. .................it must have been a mite chilly. Poor Maddie wasn't even given a cardigan as Kate states in her book that she herself thought it was a bit chilly for Maddie's bare arms. Didn't Cat remember that Kate was wearing a nice pink warm track suit but then couldn't remember what the child in her charge for the whole day had been wearing ? As if!

by kaz 16.09.15 8:59

aiyoyo wrote:
Verdi wrote:
David Payne stated that he saw all three McCann children early evening on 3rd, all in white looking like angels. So what happened to MBM's pinkish patterned pyjamas - did the colour wash out when Kate washed the top earlier in the day to remove the stain she found in the morning? Oh no, of course she was wearing the pinkish pyjamas when she ~~was abducted~~ disappeared, wasn't she?

Have always pondered the significance of the stain. Everything Kate elaborates on with unnecessary detail hides an agenda. There was suspicion of bleach being bought from the supermarket although I can't find anything concrete on this. I just wonder if the stain could have been a supposed reason to explain away the bleach should it ever come to light during an investigation.

by skyrocket 16.09.15 9:36

Fatima Da Silva Espada (5A cleaner's daughter, also cleaner) stated:

At about 13.15 she went to help her mother, who was cleaning apartment I of the same block (5) situated on the first floor. She clearly remembers seeing the girl accompanied by her siblings and mother leave their apartment (5 A) and walk to the stairs leading to the floor above. She was very close to them at a distance of about 1 metre, observing their movements for a few moments because she was charmed by them. Madeleine led the way with a plate (perhaps plastic) in her hand bearing a piece of bread. As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description. She noted, because she thought them nice, the type of shoes she was wearing, tennis shoes, light in colour she thinks, which had little lights along the soles, which lit up each time she stepped on the ground.

GM states on 10 May:

At 12H30, the deponent and KATE first went to pick up MADELEINE and then the twins, going to the apartment. On this day, Sunday, they lunched on the veranda of DP's apartment with the whole group, including children, except for MATHEW, who was ill and at that moment was sleeping on the veranda of his apartment, that was below and to the left in relation to where they were eating lunch.

----- They took the children to the play area next to the pool, where the playground apparatus is, at 14H15, having stayed there until about 14H20.

The two events tie in and put MBM and family in the pool area on Sunday 29 at around about 14.15 for at least 10 mins.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.09.15 9:42

kaz wrote:
Have always pondered the significance of the stain. Everything Kate elaborates on with unnecessary detail hides an agenda. There was suspicion of bleach being bought from the supermarket although I can't find anything concrete on this. I just wonder if the stain could have been a supposed reason to explain away the bleach should it ever come to light during an investigation.

@ Kaz I don't think you could do better on this subject than read Dr Martin Roberts' penetrating analysis of the 'Tea Stain' on the pyjamas, here:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4159-washed-up-dr-Roberts

re your previous post: "The pretty little dress is definitely a 'Sunday Best'."

REPLY: A very apposite way of referring to it, if I may say so

And you wrote: "Not the sort of thing you would dress a child in to go to the crèche and sailing (10 - 11 am) with the sea being too rough for wind surfing according to FP...it must have been a mite chilly. Poor Maddie wasn't even given a cardigan as Kate states in her book that she herself thought it was a bit chilly for Maddie's bare arms. Didn't Cat remember that Kate was wearing a nice pink warm track suit but then couldn't remember what the child in her charge for the whole day had been wearing? As if!

REPLY: We have had some very astute comments on the subject of this 'Last Photo' in the last few days. This one is right up there with the best of them. Keep 'em coming

by Rogue-a-Tory 16.09.15 9:46

kaz wrote:
aquila wrote:

What Madeleine was wearing - the exact clothing she wore on the day of her disappearance must surely be an important thing?
I haven't got a copy of 'Madeleine' by Kate McCann but I believe that she says something about her 'eyes following Madeleine all dressed in her new pink Gap clothes and how lovely she looked................'' as she , Fiona and Scarlet walked back from the crèche on the 3rd. Madeleine was skipping on ahead. Presumably these were the same clothes as shown in the 'last photograph.' Perhaps someone should have questioned Cat about this. The little 'get up' is hardly suitable for sailing. The unnecessary overblown and emotional * description of Maddie's clothes that she wore to the crèche that afternoon ties up nicely with the photograph .....................................was that the idea?
* emotional because if my memory serves me well she tied this sentence in with her fear that someone else had been watching Madeleine and thinking the same thing ( how lovely she looked ) and how she felt nauseas at the thought.

From the book

"Fiona and Dave had been windsurfing that morning and had seen Madeleine’s group, who had gone down to the beach for their‘mini-sail’ activity. We heard later that they’d been on a speedboat as well as a dinghy. Fiona told me she’d spotted Ella there but not Madeleine.

Some images are etched for all time on my brain. Madeleine that lunchtime is one of them. She was wearing an outfit I’d
bought especially for her holiday: a peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie-anglaise shorts from
Monsoon – a small extravagance, perhaps, but I’d pictured how lovely she would look in them and I’d been right. She was
striding ahead of Fiona and me, swinging her bare arms to and fro. The weather was a little on the cool side and I remember
thinking I should have brought a cardigan for her, although she seemed oblivious of the temperature, just happy and
carefree. I was following her with my eyes, admiring her. I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was
doing the same."

This was the day they had the extremely odd paedo conversation in the morning with the guest on the grassy play area. The guest who said he felt like a dirty old man because he was videoing around children. Sowing the seeds.......

by Verdi 16.09.15 11:49

kaz wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Verdi wrote:
David Payne stated that he saw all three McCann children early evening on 3rd, all in white looking like angels. So what happened to MBM's pinkish patterned pyjamas - did the colour wash out when Kate washed the top earlier in the day to remove the stain she found in the morning? Oh no, of course she was wearing the pinkish pyjamas when she ~~was abducted~~ disappeared, wasn't she?

Have always pondered the significance of the stain. Everything Kate elaborates on with unnecessary detail hides an agenda. There was suspicion of bleach being bought from the supermarket although I can't find anything concrete on this. I just wonder if the stain could have been a supposed reason to explain away the bleach should it ever come to light during an investigation.

I've always considered 'the book' to be 'the wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found' (quote attributed to Clarence Mitchell).

Looking again at the last photograph, my eyes tell me that the three subjects, (Gerry, Amelie and Madeleine) are very pale skinned, not as I would expect to see after nearly a week of daily outdoor activity in late spring. Madeleine's later forearm sunburn mentioned is also curious - it's doubtful that the sun was strong enough to burn only a small area of a child's arm. Children are usually constantly on the move so chances of a small sunburn confined to one part of one arm be extremely unlikely if not impossible.

by skyrocket 16.09.15 17:07

If you open the following link to a forensic analysis page for the last photo and then click on 'original' in the top left corner, a second photo opens below the first. The top photo is the high resolution jpeg version which was the subject of the analysis and the bottom photo is how the photo appeared before the exposure value was adjusted i.e. the second photo reproduces the exposure (light/dark) of the original from the data stored at time of capture. There is a difference - not huge but GM, MBM and Amelie certainly look less tanned. This is purely produced from the settings captured at the point the photo was taken. Not saying anything sinister in that adjusting exposure of an image is obviously quite normal and subjective but it does raise the question of how tanned they actually were when the photo was taken.

http://fotoforensics.com/analysis.php?id=dc0265c988519b9d9ab0d3b9489651d3b47c17d7.1869934

Also, IMO, the black line by Amelie's hand does appear to be merely shadow.

by rustyjames 16.09.15 22:56

skyrocket wrote: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.

@skyrocket

Just trying to understand the thinking here. As you say, the Canon A620 had no concept of timezone and/or daylight savings so the EXIF data is purely down to the current time from the camera. Obviously that date/time could have subsequently modified.

The XMP data was added by Adobe Photoshop CS. With no timezone info to go on I assume it would use the local time from the computer it was run on to interpret the imported EXIF time and to create the times of modification etc in the XMP. Likewise it seems to have updated the EXIF Modify Date again with the unqualified local time.

Interestingly though it has used +01.00 which suggests the edits were on a UK or Portuguese computer.

The IPTC data shows a time with a +00.00 - I don't know if that has been processed separately, whether IPTC always uses UTC, or the Adobe software simply handled it differently.

by skyrocket 17.09.15 10:44

@Rustyjames - morning!

OK - someone who might know!

Why do you think the XMP exif's show +01.00 if no time zones have been crossed? The time 13.29 would surely be read as correct to BST on input, so why would Adobe Photoshop CS modify with the +1 hour? Am I missing something? Seems odd doesn't it!

We could have a protracted discussion about this - I accept I started! The +1 hour additions seem anomalous to me but the problem is, the only metadata of any true value is/was attached to the original. Had the Canon been grabbed by the PJ on the 3/4 May 2007, the camera time and the metadata would have been admissable. I doubt now that any of this can be used - anyone could've tampered with it, or at least that will be a valid argument.

IMO, some salient questions are:

1. Why is the 'last photo' about the only photo with a good set of metadata still attached, available for download off the internet? Can't be a coincidence.

2. Why was it not released until 24 May 2007? (AFter GM's trip to the UK).

3. Why did TM push the time point of 14.29 pm and the 1 hour discrepancy? Was it true, and played on, to distract from the date having been tampered with in the metadata?

14.29pm fits in with 29 May, despite GM's statement regarding the time, the twins were returned to the creche (next to the pool) at 14.35pm and MBM at 14.45pm (next to main reception) that afternoon, after having played in the area next to the pool. MBM was wearing 'a skirt' that day, as stated by what would seem to be a reliable witness. The weather was good on Sunday 29 May.

4. From the original metadata, at time of taking the photo, we know that the image exposure has been altered to darken it at a later time, i.e. GM; MBM; and AM, don't look as tanned in the original version. Was this just preference or for some other reason? Seems strange that small changes in exposure would have been any consideration under the circumstances.

IMO, and I stress that, from looking at the ELA (analysis) I don't believe this photo's appearance was photoshopped (other than minor exposure adjustments - shown in the metadata). The black line next to Amelie, shows as a shadow on the highres image; the angles/tree/wall/etc, line up although it took a lot of staring at the image to confirm this - I think MBM's hand is very close to the depth marker; GM's glasses shadow has been explained I believe. IMO, it was taken on the holiday in Luz on Sun 29, after lunch, but I accept that I may well be wrong!

by rustyjames 17.09.15 14:23

@skyrocket - they are very good questions but unfortunately impossible to definitively answer by anyone other than those that handled the image.

Therefore as you say the timestamp +01:00 is probably a moot point, but just to try and clarify my previous post as to why I'm sure Adobe has done the right thing in adding it ....

When importing the image the only date/time information available is from the camera's EXIF data - i.e. time of "13:29:51" and date of "3rd May 2007", with no clue as to the location or timezone. Therefore all the software can do when creating the XMP data is by default assume that the date/time is in the local timezone of the computer being used to edit it, which would mean for 3rd May in the UK or Portugal is +01:00. Therefore 13:29:51+01:00 is the correct representation of the local time 13:29:51 in either Portugal or the UK, and directly equivalent to 12:29:51+00:00 - i.e. in GMT/UTC/Zulu Time or any of the other ways of referring to +00:00.

Had the image been imported on say a French computer, then I would have expected it to say "13:29:51+02:00" which would be "12:29:51+01:00" in the UK/Portugal - i.e 11:29:51 GMT.

I hope that's clearer - timezone and daylight savings representations and implementation cause no end of problems in software.

by skyrocket 17.09.15 15:42

@ Rustyjames

Thanks for that.

I think we concur that the whole timestamp issue is a minefield. Certainly not reliable for anything - real pity the PJ didn't confiscate all the cameras the same night, although if the Mc's/tapas 7 were not forthcoming there would have been little they could have done. Also, with the Mc's shouting abduction from the rooftops I guess the real significance of the cameras was not realised for a good few hours. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Amaral stated that there was no real protocol in place for such an occurence (child going missing/abduction) - I'm sure that has since been rectified.

One positive is that I doubt TM can rely on this photo for anything much either. It's only their word that it was taken on the 3 May at 14.29 pm (unless they can come up with an independent witness to that effect), as we've seen the metadata can be manipulated and argued either way.

Still, the questions of why this photo was not used for the searches and why the camera was apparently still in the Mc's possession (I'm assuming it was?) on 24 May are still relevant. As is the weather (shown by PeterMac to be worse later in the week); the clothing; timing (fitting in with statements); etc.

So many doors open and then are slammed closed - it's that woooshing wind of KM's again!

by **Tony Bennett** 18.09.15 15:11

skyrocket wrote:Still, the questions of why this photo was not used for the searches and why the camera was apparently still in the Mc's possession (I'm assuming it was?) on 24 May are still relevant.

I think we already know the answer.

Because a combination of Gerry McCann, Alex Wooolfall - Head of PR for one of the world's most prestigious PR agencies, Bell Pottinger - and husband of Kate's cousin, Michael Wright, were busy using the Canon - and maybe the memory cards from the Olympus and indeed other cameras as well * - to (a) get carefully-selected and pre-vetted photos out to the media (like the Tennis Balls Photo on 5 May) and (b) to prepare a carefully selected, cropped, edited photos, which were delivered by hand to the Portuguese Police by Gerry McCann and Michael Wright on Wednesday 9 May 2007. A subject which Kate McCann deliberately omits from her book on the case, 'madeleine'.

To quote Portuguese Police Inspector Hugo Ferreira, on 9 May:

* "I am pleased to inform you that today we were given photographic stills taken during the holiday period in Portugal from 28th April by the English families that compose the group that Madeleine Beth McCann was with, so that they can be annexed to the process files”.

by Verdi 18.09.15 15:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
skyrocket wrote:Still, the questions of why this photo was not used for the searches and why the camera was apparently still in the Mc's possession (I'm assuming it was?) on 24 May are still relevant.
I think we already know the answer.

Because a combination of Gerry McCann, Alex Wooolfall - Head of PR for one of the world's most prestigious PR agencies, Bell Pottinger - and husband of Kate's cousin, Michael Wright, were busy using the Canon - and maybe the memory cards from the Olympus and indeed other cameras as well * - to (a) get carefully-selected and pre-vetted photos out to the media (like the Tennis Balls Photo on 5 May) and (b) to prepare a carefully selected, cropped, edited photos, which were delivered by hand to the Portuguese Police by Gerry McCann and Michael Wright on Wednesday 9 May 2007. A subject which Kate McCann deliberately omits from her book on the case, 'madeleine'.

To quote Portuguese Police Inspector Hugo Ferreira, on 9 May:

* "I am pleased to inform you that today we were given photographic stills taken during the holiday period in Portugal from 28th April by the English families that compose the group that Madeleine Beth McCann was with, so that they can be annexed to the process files”.

Indeed! If I went out on a jaunt with my camera at this minute and returned an hour later, I could take any number of photographs and have those I want printed off by 5.00 pm. Assuming there was an urgent need of course!

by TheTruthWillOut 18.09.15 16:20

Tony Bennett wrote:
skyrocket wrote:Still, the questions of why this photo was not used for the searches and why the camera was apparently still in the Mc's possession (I'm assuming it was?) on 24 May are still relevant.
I think we already know the answer.

Because a combination of Gerry McCann, Alex Wooolfall - Head of PR for one of the world's most prestigious PR agencies, Bell Pottinger - and husband of Kate's cousin, Michael Wright, were busy using the Canon - and maybe the memory cards from the Olympus and indeed other cameras as well * - to (a) get carefully-selected and pre-vetted photos out to the media (like the Tennis Balls Photo on 5 May) and (b) to prepare a carefully selected, cropped, edited photos, which were delivered by hand to the Portuguese Police by Gerry McCann and Michael Wright on Wednesday 9 May 2007. A subject which Kate McCann deliberately omits from her book on the case, 'madeleine'.

To quote Portuguese Police Inspector Hugo Ferreira, on 9 May:

* "I am pleased to inform you that today we were given photographic stills taken during the holiday period in Portugal from 28th April by the English families that compose the group that Madeleine Beth McCann was with, so that they can be annexed to the process files”.

Wait a minute, you've lost me here..granted, not hard.

Using the memory cards from the Olympus and other cameras? Are you suggesting the possibility that images from the Olympus camera (the Fosters camera) were either sent/given directly to the McCanns by the Fosters or even via Hampshire police after they collected the camera and memory cards from their home in the UK?

by **Jill Havern** 21.09.15 20:12

Darren Ware made this video in response to a discussion on the CMOMM facebook group.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/JillHavernCompleteMysteryofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/1670982866479533/

by Verdi 21.09.15 20:21

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

Darren Ware made this video in response to a discussion on the CMOMM facebook group.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/JillHavernCompleteMysteryofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/1670982866479533/

Touché - bravo that man!

Very interesting, thank you for posting the video. It makes so much more sense than the amateurs naked eye.

by Knitted 22.09.15 20:31

I just posted a new improved video onto the Facebook forum. Some members (Maria!) were still not convinced so I scaled up the experiment to attempt to respond to his/her request to replicate the reflection exactly!! In the absence of a round swimming pool, Gerry's shades and bright sunshine I think this is quite conclusive!! I'll be happy to answer any technical questions!!

(Jump to 3m 20secs to skip the preamble)