Re: Another look at the Last photo

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:

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

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 Guest 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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

by Guest 21.09.15 20:21

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

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

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

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)

by DaTroof 22.09.15 23:02

Thank you, thank you, thank you. It's great to see someone dealing with it in a proper way. thanks

by Guest 23.09.15 7:22

Knitted wrote: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)

Well done Knitted.

I remember going over this ages ago in great detail and the same explanation was given, it's nice to see a concise demonstration.

The only thing dodgy about that picture is the claimed date.

by ROSA 23.09.15 9:53

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

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

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

Darren Ware closing comments are interesting he is straight up about what he thinks happened to Madeleine I liked your video thanks

by aiyoyo 23.09.15 17:51

Knitted wrote: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)

Thank you knitted. Clear articulate presentation, and nice voice too !

Since Grange had been given a copy of the experts opinion, nothing to stop them using their own associating experts to verify for themselves the result of experts consulted by PeterMac.
If Grange were doing their job seriously you'd suppose that every credible and plausible evidence given to them they would check on for purpose.

It's a mystery why Andy Redwood declared the main characters not people of interest to the investigation when there is a mountain of evidence to substantiate they were hiding the truth.

by willowthewisp 24.09.15 12:52

Hi aiyoyo,
"He who pays the piper calls the Tunes"eh Dodgy Dave, are they still singing from the same hymn sheet now Rebekahs back at the helm,good old Rupert in his quest for the Truth,Not?

by rustyjames 25.09.15 0:56

Excellent, and what I've been saying for a while, but with no good experiment to demonstrate it, for example here - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

rustyjames wrote:
The explanation I believe is that between Gerry and the photographer is part of the lip of Amelie's hat and then the pool edge. It is not horizontal as it's the rounded edge of the pool - in fact from the photographer's perpective it is mostly vertical with an anti-clockwise curve from them to the subject.

Now that curve is reflected in the left part of the lens which is concave. The effect is to straighten the curve of the pool - in fact it has done so so much that it has introduced a very slight curve in the opposite direction. The dark patch to the right of the reflection is possibly a shadow - maybe even from the photographer.

by Guest 25.09.15 23:03

rustyjames wrote:Excellent, and what I've been saying for a while, but with no good experiment to demonstrate it, for example here - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

rustyjames wrote:
The explanation I believe is that between Gerry and the photographer is part of the lip of Amelie's hat and then the pool edge. It is not horizontal as it's the rounded edge of the pool - in fact from the photographer's perpective it is mostly vertical with an anti-clockwise curve from them to the subject.

Now that curve is reflected in the left part of the lens which is concave. The effect is to straighten the curve of the pool - in fact it has done so so much that it has introduced a very slight curve in the opposite direction. The dark patch to the right of the reflection is possibly a shadow - maybe even from the photographer.

I take notice of what you write rustyjames and I trust your judgement on the subject - even if I don't usually say so. Also thanks to knitted for the explanatory video - only just realised it was produced by a forum member.

by **Tony Bennett** 26.09.15 0:18

Verdi wrote:
rustyjames wrote:Excellent, and what I've been saying for a while, but with no good experiment to demonstrate it, for example here - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

rustyjames wrote:
The explanation I believe is that between Gerry and the photographer is part of the lip of Amelie's hat and then the pool edge. It is not horizontal as it's the rounded edge of the pool - in fact from the photographer's perpective it is mostly vertical with an anti-clockwise curve from them to the subject.

Now that curve is reflected in the left part of the lens which is concave. The effect is to straighten the curve of the pool - in fact it has done so so much that it has introduced a very slight curve in the opposite direction. The dark patch to the right of the reflection is possibly a shadow - maybe even from the photographer.
I take notice of what you write rustyjames and I trust your judgement on the subject - even if I don't usually say so. Also thanks to knitted for the explanatory video - only just realised it was produced by a forum member.

Yes, 'Knitted' has done some very good work on the CMOMM Facebook page - clearly setting out reasons why the Last Photo is likely to be genuine (apart from the query about the date), and completely demolishing all the preposterous claims about 'the sunglasses prove that the Last Photo is photoshopped' etc. etc.

I'm afraid he's up against strong opposition there, including from one or two well-known names in McCannLand, who will keep insisting that their impressions supercede the experienced opinions of several experts.

It was just the same here on the 'Last Photo' threads

by Ray_Sneek 27.02.16 20:10

A CMOMM member has uploaded to YouTube a 15-minute extract of Richard Hall's latest Madeleine film, featuring 'The Last Photo', which features the expert opinions of another renowned CMOMM member - and come to think of it, the film itself is made by a CMOMM member.

It was uploaded on Wednesday (24 February): [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 27.02.16 23:30

Ray_Sneek wrote:A CMOMM member has uploaded to YouTube a 15-minute extract of Richard Hall's latest Madeleine film, featuring 'The Last Photo', which features the expert opinions of another renowned CMOMM member - and come to think of it, the film itself is made by a CMOMM member.

It was uploaded on Wednesday (24 February): [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Thu Feb 25, 2016 1:57 am

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

by Guest 28.02.16 20:38

I tire of this never ending argument about the timing of the last photograph. How much evidence and/or intelligence is required before people accept that the photograph could have been taken at a time and day other than the proclaimed early afternoon of Thursday 3rd May. The only argument they seem to offer against the possibility is the prevailing weather conditions recorded for that particular week late April and early May 2007 by one archivist or another.

The witness statements of the Tapas group inform us that Thursday 3rd May was blooming cold or chilly, depending on who you care to believe. Even Kate McCann makes reference to wishing she had taken a cardigan for Madeleine (of the top of my head) because it was so chilly. Can't speak for others but I'm blowed if I'd flash the flesh at an ambient temperature hovering between 17C and 19C - not even for a family photoshoot. Even if it was sunny at intervals it doesn't mean it was warm enough for summer gear (as seen in the last photograph) - the sun shines regularly in the Shetlands in December but would you strip off for a poolside afternoon? I doubt it very much - you certainly wouldn't subject your little children to the ordeal.

OK, so one archive says one thing and another archive says another, the other day it rained heavily here on one side of the road but was clear and dry on the other but I'm in no doubt that the meteo archives will record sunny, partial cloud and scattered showers - not it was sunny and warm one side of the M25 but cold and wissing with rain on the other side. All this means nothing without verification by an on-site observer. This was provided I believe by PeterMac, included within his indepth study of the weather conditions during that period. I read this in the last few days, I'll try to find later if someone doesn't beat me to it.

These clever dicks who refuse to see beyond what is directly before their eyes, the last photograph in this instance, seem to ignore and/or can't explain, the fact that the photograph did not materialize until three weeks after Madeleine disappeared - after Gerry McCann returned to the UK to attend to matters of an urgent nature. For crying out loud - what more do people need before accepting that the last photograph is open to scrutiny. Any conspiracy (the word theory purposely omitted) emanates from team McCann NOT their public critics.

The weather conditions play a pivotal role in why this photograph cannot be accepted as authentic in terms of time and day but that is not by any means the only reason why. All the diversion tactics in the world won't change that simple fact.

by Guest 29.02.16 13:12

It's the first page of this very thread - duh! Well worth a re-plug though so my time is not totally wasted..

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

It was the bit on 'Weather Records' I was referring to - ex-pats in the locale keeping diary records.

by Guest 03.03.16 12:26

madeleine by Kate McCann - lunchtime Thursday 3rd May 2007

"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..."

by Guest 03.03.16 12:43

Whilst circumnavigating the length and breadth of the Algarve, the self proclaimed experts in all thing meteorological, neglect to recognize the true value of an eye witness. It's so convenient to shrug aside actual conditions reported by a real person on the scene as shrouded in a cloud of anonymity, or denying the fact that archived statistics, from whatever source, do not necessarily reflect the general conditions in any one specific location.

Still, going around in circles, comparing one region with another according to archives makes for a perfect distraction from the other questionable aspect of the last photograph. I've yet to see a valid explanation as to why the last photograph didn't materialize until three weeks after Madeleine's disappearance. What was it doing in that intervening period? Nor have I seen a convincing argument to confirm Madeleine's existence after the first two days of their arrival in Portugal. Plenty of waffle but nothing persuasive.

The True Story of Madeleine McCann - When Madeleine Died?

This series of films has been researched and presented with the intention of providing an accurate, truthful account of the facts relating to Madeleine McCann. If any person has evidenc that brings new information to light, then we encourage you to contact us by emailing the producer at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. If the information you send is relevant and well founded, then we will consider modifying our documentary film(s). We will post any relevant and verifiable updates at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

So what are you waiting for?

by skyrocket 09.04.16 17:31

The current discussion on the Alex Woolfall thread re: the 'last photo', had me thinking. Bear with me as I work through to the point:

1.In Jane Tanner's 10 May 2007 statement she says the following:

'As for the Payne and McCann couples, they journeyed by plane from East Midlands to Faro, having arrived around 11h00. They took a taxi from Faro to Luz arriving at 12h00 also on the 28 May [sic]'. (note: Tanner obviously meant '28 April' here).

Tanner does not retract this in her rogatory a year later.

2. On 'Guest List 2' in the PJ Files [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_lla_Page_335.jpg it states at the bottom of the Payne/McCann entry that 'the Payne and Mccann family will arrive in resort at midday on Saturday.'

3. In the airport video on the bus Gerry Mccann can be seen to be wearing a light grey/tan T shirt with a small white strip around the edge of the sleeve and the neck.

4. As discussed somewhere here on a thread before, in the 'last photo' GM appears to be wearing the same T shirt.

5. In the thread 'Weather in Praia da Luz' posted by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the first post lists the weather for each day. On Saturday the lunchtime temp rose to 22C.

6. We are told by Kate McCann that both her and MBM ventured into the swimming pool on arrival at the resort.

7. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] commented that Jane Tanner was surprisingly garbled when describing Ella and the creche on Sunday.

8. The T7 statements are also garbled about the outward journey in places - child car seats; etc.

9. Don't forget that Easter 2007 was one of the hottest on record and skin could have got a bit tanned during the hol in Donegal, prior to the hol in Luz.

What if the Mcs were in the resort by midday on the Saturday? What if MBM changed into her new smock to go down to the pool? What if GM threw his shorts on to get a bit of sun (same T shirt). What if the 'last photo' was taken? What if MBM then put a pair of long trousers on because she was cold from the swim (playground photos)?

Any thoughts?

Apologies for the lack/poor links - I'm on a primitive tablet at the moment.