Re: Another look at the Last photo

by JRP 12.01.17 16:33

Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Still no explanation as to why the 'last photograph' and the curious 'tennis court' photograph were not included in the photographs given to the PJ.
Because they were already widely available?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The 'Last Photo' wasn't released until Thursday 24 May, two days after Gerry McCann's return from his England trip (20 to 22 May) and Philomena McCann's arrival in Praia da Luz the same day.

According to this video:

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

...the Tennis Balls Photo was released on 7 or 8 May.

The maker of that video says that the photo was 'created on 5 May' (i.e. after Madeleine was reported missing) and she adds what I assume are the EXIF data.

Others suggest that the photo was 'amended' for publication on 5 May but was taken earlier.

Not being a 'tecchie', I have no idea which is right.

If you freeze frame the video at 1:09 and look at the top end of the exif document it clearly shows that this info relates to a Photoshop version.
It states
Modify Date: 2007:05:11 09:50:25
Software: Adobe Photoshop 7.0

The image was modified in Photoshop version 7 on 11th May 2007
It was created on 2007:05:05

So, this image was created in Photoshop 7 on 5th May 2007, and modified in some way on 11th May 2007.

Just as a note, this Tennis Balls image is created and modified in Photoshop version 7 while the Last Photo (pool photo) has been saved in Photoshop CS.

Photoshop CS was an upgrade to Photoshop 7, one for which a payment was made.
Do two different versions signify two different sources, or did somebody upgrade versions between 11th May and 24th May?

by Equity 12.01.17 16:40

Tony Bennett wrote:

Snipped...

According to this video:

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

...the Tennis Balls Photo was released on 7 or 8 May.

The maker of that video says that the photo was 'created on 5 May' (i.e. after Madeleine was reported missing) and she adds what I assume are the EXIF data.

Others suggest that the photo was 'amended' for publication on 5 May but was taken earlier.

Not being a 'tecchie', I have no idea which is right.

Hi Tony

If you look at that YouTube vid closely you can just make out the Exif Data they refer to. The software they are using is not 'special' - it's 'ExifTool' which has been a free download for the past 16 years.

It is obviously NOT the original image data as a description of the image has been added together with copyright information regarding storage and use (looks like AP Images who are based in the USA as the dimensions are also in inches). Some newsrooms and photo libraries have their own image handling workflows (sometimes a Photoshop Plug-in) which will automatically generate a creation and modification date when it enters their system. This seems likely as the dimensions and resolutions do not look normal for an original image straight off the camera - the time stamp also looks as if it reads 00:00:00.

The person who made the YouTube vid you linked to has no idea how to interpret the Exif data. The creation date showing is not the date from the camera and even if it were it would be dependent on how accurate the date and time on the camera happened to be. Exif data merely records the settings from the camera - it's not some sort of spooky artificial intelligence.

I hold a copy of the original 'last photo' from the old 3As days. If I open that file and save it with a different name the creation date stays the same but the modification date will be updated - if however, I copy and paste it into a new photoshop file it will have a NEW creation AND modification date (but all the original camera data will be lost).

I have retouched images professionally using photoshop since it was first launched and for years before then I was an apprentice served colour retoucher and retouched both printed images and positives using an airbrush. As soon as I received the original high resolution 'last photo' way back in 2008 I posted a full explanation of why the image was not 'fake' - at least not fake in the ways many people were suggesting - unfortunately this triggered my receiving a barrage of wholly unexpected abuse so I have always avoided the subject - up until now of course as I think the issue has finally been put to bed and this seems a nice friendly place :-)

I foolishly emailed another member an image I created swapping where M and A were sitting to show I was proficient in using Photoshop - I only spent about 10 minutes doing it so far from perfect - but to my horror I started seeing it used as 'evidence' that the 'last photo' was fake!

It still makes me smile when I read some people say an image has been 'photoshopped' when they obviously haven't fully thought through what they mean by 'being photoshopped'. Photoshop is a fantastic piece of software and has very few limitations. It does have limitations however that I suppose are obvious if you use it every day but some people became 'experts' despite never using the software in their lives. In their imagination they think Photoshop just 'photoshops' things - if you want Madeleine sitting perfectly with her sister and father by a swimming pool (although she's not actually there) you just use the 'add 4 year old girl to image' brush - job done :-)

.

by JRP 12.01.17 17:28

Equity wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Snipped...

According to this video:

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

...the Tennis Balls Photo was released on 7 or 8 May.

The maker of that video says that the photo was 'created on 5 May' (i.e. after Madeleine was reported missing) and she adds what I assume are the EXIF data.

Others suggest that the photo was 'amended' for publication on 5 May but was taken earlier.

Not being a 'tecchie', I have no idea which is right.

Hi Tony

If you look at that YouTube vid closely you can just make out the Exif Data they refer to. The software they are using is not 'special' - it's 'ExifTool' which has been a free download for the past 16 years.

It is obviously NOT the original image data as a description of the image has been added together with copyright information regarding storage and use (looks like AP Images who are based in the USA as the dimensions are also in inches). Some newsrooms and photo libraries have their own image handling workflows (sometimes a Photoshop Plug-in) which will automatically generate a creation and modification date when it enters their system. This seems likely as the dimensions and resolutions do not look normal for an original image straight off the camera - the time stamp also looks as if it reads 00:00:00.

The person who made the YouTube vid you linked to has no idea how to interpret the Exif data. The creation date showing is not the date from the camera and even if it were it would be dependent on how accurate the date and time on the camera happened to be. Exif data merely records the settings from the camera - it's not some sort of spooky artificial intelligence.

I hold a copy of the original 'last photo' from the old 3As days. If I open that file and save it with a different name the creation date stays the same but the modification date will be updated - if however, I copy and paste it into a new photoshop file it will have a NEW creation AND modification date (but all the original camera data will be lost).

I have retouched images professionally using photoshop since it was first launched and for years before then I was an apprentice served colour retoucher and retouched both printed images and positives using an airbrush. As soon as I received the original high resolution 'last photo' way back in 2008 I posted a full explanation of why the image was not 'fake' - at least not fake in the ways many people were suggesting - unfortunately this triggered my receiving a barrage of wholly unexpected abuse so I have always avoided the subject - up until now of course as I think the issue has finally been put to bed and this seems a nice friendly place :-)

I foolishly emailed another member an image I created swapping where M and A were sitting to show I was proficient in using Photoshop - I only spent about 10 minutes doing it so far from perfect - but to my horror I started seeing it used as 'evidence' that the 'last photo' was fake!

It still makes me smile when I read some people say an image has been 'photoshopped' when they obviously haven't fully thought through what they mean by 'being photoshopped'. Photoshop is a fantastic piece of software and has very few limitations. It does have limitations however that I suppose are obvious if you use it every day but some people became 'experts' despite never using the software in their lives. In their imagination they think Photoshop just 'photoshops' things - if you want Madeleine sitting perfectly with her sister and father by a swimming pool (although she's not actually there) you just use the 'add 4 year old girl to image' brush - job done :-)

.

People using Photoshop now, are spoiled because adding and removing people, objects, unwanted items etc is now very very easy, the latest programs detect the edges of what you want to cut out so well.

However, we are talking about 2007 technology, and while that isn't too far in the distant past in terms of years, in terms of photo capture and photo editing technology it's light years away.

Cutting a head, face, or whole person from one photo and pasting to another was a work of art, you had to cut objects/people out by eye, like placing a lasoo around every detail... So when you go on modern courses using modern versions of the latest software, and comment on how easy this kind of thing is, you have no idea of the enormity of the task 10 years back.

I still have a version of Photoshop 7 and compared to the latest version Photoshop CC it's like going bavck to drive a Ford Anglea.

by Doug D 12.01.17 17:34

Verdi:

‘I therefore think it safe to assume that the Olympus equipment analyzed by Martin in Hampshire originated directly or indirectly from Leicestershire’

Surely not, although it makes little difference.

Nigel Foster, wife & 3 year old daughter were booked into OC till 5^th May.

Unlikely, but not impossible of course, that the Leicester Police got hold of his camera & memory cards before lunchtime on 8^th,but not the video cam. If they had they would surely have kept hold and got their own experts to look at them. DC Martin was only the local ‘high-tech’ man for Southampton, which is why the ended up with him. He was not even the right man for video's. Hard to believe Leicester did not have their own unit in 2007. They certainly have now.

In DC Martin’s own words he was ‘request(ed) they be examined to establish if they contained pictures and video footage of a hotel complex in Praia da Luz.’ No specialist examination was even requested. That looks like an ‘extra’ kindly supplied by Southampton Police.

The important thing is the ‘NALF’ references to both the videocam & Olympus camera clearly showing they both belonged to the Fosters.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.01.17 17:40

Equity wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Snipped...

According to this video:

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

...the Tennis Balls Photo was released on 7 or 8 May.

The maker of that video says that the photo was 'created on 5 May' (i.e. after Madeleine was reported missing) and she adds what I assume are the EXIF data.

Others suggest that the photo was 'amended' for publication on 5 May but was taken earlier.

Not being a 'tecchie', I have no idea which is right.

Hi Tony

If you look at that YouTube vid closely you can just make out the Exif Data they refer to. The software they are using is not 'special' - it's 'ExifTool' which has been a free download for the past 16 years.

It is obviously NOT the original image data as a description of the image has been added together with copyright information regarding storage and use (looks like AP Images who are based in the USA as the dimensions are also in inches). Some newsrooms and photo libraries have their own image handling workflows (sometimes a Photoshop Plug-in) which will automatically generate a creation and modification date when it enters their system. This seems likely as the dimensions and resolutions do not look normal for an original image straight off the camera - the time stamp also looks as if it reads 00:00:00.

The person who made the YouTube vid you linked to has no idea how to interpret the Exif data. The creation date showing is not the date from the camera and even if it were it would be dependent on how accurate the date and time on the camera happened to be. Exif data merely records the settings from the camera - it's not some sort of spooky artificial intelligence.

I hold a copy of the original 'last photo' from the old 3As days. If I open that file and save it with a different name the creation date stays the same but the modification date will be updated - if however, I copy and paste it into a new photoshop file it will have a NEW creation AND modification date (but all the original camera data will be lost).

I have retouched images professionally using photoshop since it was first launched and for years before then I was an apprentice served colour retoucher and retouched both printed images and positives using an airbrush. As soon as I received the original high resolution 'last photo' way back in 2008 I posted a full explanation of why the image was not 'fake' - at least not fake in the ways many people were suggesting - unfortunately this triggered my receiving a barrage of wholly unexpected abuse so I have always avoided the subject - up until now of course as I think the issue has finally been put to bed and this seems a nice friendly place :-)

I foolishly emailed another member an image I created swapping where M and A were sitting to show I was proficient in using Photoshop - I only spent about 10 minutes doing it so far from perfect - but to my horror I started seeing it used as 'evidence' that the 'last photo' was fake!

It still makes me smile when I read some people say an image has been 'photoshopped' when they obviously haven't fully thought through what they mean by 'being photoshopped'. Photoshop is a fantastic piece of software and has very few limitations. It does have limitations however that I suppose are obvious if you use it every day but some people became 'experts' despite never using the software in their lives. In their imagination they think Photoshop just 'photoshops' things - if you want Madeleine sitting perfectly with her sister and father by a swimming pool (although she's not actually there) you just use the 'add 4 year old girl to image' brush - job done :-).

@ Equity - Wow! What a hugely helpful and informative post that was - thank you very much for taking the time.

Regarding these bits of your post...

QUOTE

As soon as I received the original high resolution 'Last Photo' way back in 2008 I posted a full explanation of why the image was not 'fake' - at least not fake in the ways many people were suggesting - unfortunately this triggered my receiving a barrage of wholly unexpected abuse so I have always avoided the subject - up until now of course as I think the issue has finally been put to bed and this seems a nice friendly place :-)

I foolishly emailed another member an image I created swapping where M and A were sitting to show I was proficient in using Photoshop - but to my horror I started seeing it used as 'evidence' that the 'last photo' was fake!

It still makes me smile when I read some people say an image has been 'photoshopped' when they obviously haven't fully thought through what they mean by 'being photoshopped'. Photoshop is a fantastic piece of software and has very few limitations. It does have limitations however that I suppose are obvious if you use it every day but some people became 'experts' despite never using the software in their lives. In their imagination they think Photoshop just 'photoshops' things - if you want Madeleine sitting perfectly with her sister and father by a swimming pool (although she's not actually there) you just use the 'add 4 year old girl to image' brush - job done :-)

REPLY: This has always been a friendly place for anyone who is genuinely here to search for the truth. Those who are genuine will always want to look at all the evidence and hypotheses - and be prepared to prefer good evidence to bad evidence and prefer reasoned hypotheses to wild speculation and unsupportd theories.

Most of those who gave you 'a barrage of unexpected abuse' have long since migrated to another place, where they can discuss all sorts of unevidenced ideas and speculation, untroubled by any worries that their often preposterous theories will ever be challenged

by Guest 12.01.17 20:22

DougD,

OK fair enough, you say petata I say patarto and never the twain shall meet.

It's not an area of particular interest to me anyway, my primary concern is the absence of Madeleine photographs outside of the poolside/playground shots and the scarcity of photographs of the McCann family and their friends.

by kaz 13.01.17 10:03

Verdi wrote:DougD,

OK fair enough, you say petata I say patarto and never the twain shall meet.

It's not an area of particular interest to me anyway, my primary concern is the absence of Madeleine photographs outside of the poolside/playground shots and the scarcity of photographs of the McCann family and their friends.

But with so many of the photographs indecipherable, can we be sure of that? Now THAT would be a good reason for the McCanns to pass on greyscale photos wouldn't it? Not saying that the photograph evidence in the PJ files aren't scans..............they certainly look like them .....................................but the question is, are they scans of photographs already useless as evidence?

by Equity 13.01.17 11:38

kaz wrote:
Verdi wrote:DougD,

OK fair enough, you say petata I say patarto and never the twain shall meet.

It's not an area of particular interest to me anyway, my primary concern is the absence of Madeleine photographs outside of the poolside/playground shots and the scarcity of photographs of the McCann family and their friends.
But with so many of the photographs indecipherable, can we be sure of that? Now THAT would be a good reason for the McCanns to pass on greyscale photos wouldn't it? Not saying that the photograph evidence in the PJ files aren't scans..............they certainly look like them .....................................but the question is, are they scans of photographs already useless as evidence?

The black & white images in the PJ files are not scans. They are the result of photocopying a photograph (either colour or black & white). The photocopier can't see any dots to reproduce so just dumps a load of toner on the paper with varying degrees of success.

I'm sure the PJ will hold a master original file containing the original photographs, almost certainly colour. They will have then made copies of the master, unfortunately using a photocopier, producing a less than desirable result.

The modern way would be to scan all the documents to create a PDF record from which copies could be printed.

Photographs that we used to get from the chemist or now print them off ourselves from the machines in supermarkets etc are called 'continuous tone' images. Although nowadays it is a digital process, it still uses proper light sensitive paper so you can't actually see any dots. Images printed off desktop inkjet printers are made up of thousands of tiny dots in a dither pattern - the dot is now so fine that these images would also photocopy quite badly. The only images that would photocopy OK are what are called halftones - they are created using a screen of dots that the photocopier can see and reproduce - hence the expression in printing 'dot for dot'.

Halftones also appear in commercially printed material using a lithographic press - each colour is made from a pattern of dots from the four primary colours Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black. If you look at a colour magazine through a magnifying glass you would see a pattern in the shape of a rosette - it's this uniform dot that allows it to be photocopied ok.

A modern photocopier would have scanned the originals (effectively turning them into halftones) and the results would have been much, much clearer.

Unfortunately in this case the PJ used an old photocopier to make duplicates which is why the photos look crap.
.

by Guest 13.01.17 12:27

The Truth of the Lie by Goncalo Amaral - Chapter 3

THE INFORMATION SOUGHT IS SOMETIMES UNOBTAINABLE

We need reliable information. Apart from all the searches already undertaken, we must also examine the photos and films taken by the McCann family and their friends. From amongst the onlookers, these images could help to identify a suspicious-looking individual or someone whose attitude might be suspicious. Trivialised since the general use of computers, photography is a source of information which the investigators know not to neglect: each holiday-maker takes, in general, hundreds of photos. The McCanns and their friends who were in Vila da Luz make all of theirs available to the investigators, but none of those dating from the evening of the disappearance help us to understand what happened.
----------

David Payne rogatory interview - April 2008

1485 "Okay. Did you take any photos on the night at the Tapas bar''

Reply "No I didn't.'

1485 "Did anybody take any photos''

Reply "Err''

1485 "Before Kate obviously raised the alarm.'

Reply "Not that I'm aware of. There wasn't, normally we're quite snap happy but err we've only got a few pictures from the second of May, then the third of May and then you know a few days until err so there wasn't a great deal of pictures being taken err you know obviously there was a few here and there, Jane's quite keen on photography, I know she takes some nice pictures and I'd taken some in the play area on the, the, err the night before and we've also got pictures of the, the afternoon from the beach and from the restaurant and then the play area again and there's some pictures of us playing tennis err with the times on, so you know that's about the last pictures that I can recall. I've got our pictures and I've got Dianne's pictures but I've certainly not seen anybody else's err completely.

1485 "What about the night before' The Wednesday night, did you take any pictures, were any pictures taken then' Or did you see any pictures being taken then''

Reply "In the evening''

1485 "Yeah, because I understand that you stayed later on the Wednesday night.'

Reply "We did, yes, err the pictures that I've got, there are some pictures on one of the evenings and I can't say which evening that was.'

1485 "Your camera should''

Reply "My cameras will have the''

1485 "It'll have''

Reply "It'll have the date on there.'

1485 "Yeah.'

Reply "But I, you know I can't remember which evening, I thought it was earlier on in the week but err but again it wasn't, it wasn't, you know in the evenings wasn't generally camera time, I don't think people were that bothered really in the evening and that taking pictures, it wasn't...'

1485 "Because it would have all pictures of you huddled together and...'

Reply "Well it would yeah.'

1485 "(Inaudible).'

Reply "That was it yeah. I mean as I say there's only like two or three pictures I think we've got from the evening.'
----------

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

by Guest 13.01.17 12:44

Equity wrote:
If you look at that YouTube vid closely you can just make out the Exif Data they refer to. The software they are using is not 'special' - it's 'ExifTool' which has been a free download for the past 16 years.

I'm not qualified to comment on technical issues but I've often wondered about the validity of Exif Data presented, quite frequently, to add weight to the 'photoshop' theories that attach themselves to just about every Madeleine photograph.

Mainly because the data contains information that one wouldn't expect to see from an original photograph straight from the camera. It's useless to use information to prove a point if you don't understand the technicalities - let's face it, the subject of digital photography is very daunting to the layperson.

Your detailed explanation covering so many points is much appreciated - although I admit some of it is beyond my comprehension. Keep it coming thumbsup

!

by kaz 13.01.17 13:14

Equity wrote:
kaz wrote:
Verdi wrote:DougD,

OK fair enough, you say petata I say patarto and never the twain shall meet.

It's not an area of particular interest to me anyway, my primary concern is the absence of Madeleine photographs outside of the poolside/playground shots and the scarcity of photographs of the McCann family and their friends.
But with so many of the photographs indecipherable, can we be sure of that? Now THAT would be a good reason for the McCanns to pass on greyscale photos wouldn't it? Not saying that the photograph evidence in the PJ files aren't scans..............they certainly look like them .....................................but the question is, are they scans of photographs already useless as evidence?

The black & white images in the PJ files are not scans. They are the result of photocopying a photograph (either colour or black & white). The photocopier can't see any dots to reproduce so just dumps a load of toner on the paper with varying degrees of success.

I'm sure the PJ will hold a master original file containing the original photographs, almost certainly colour. They will have then made copies of the master, unfortunately using a photocopier, producing a less than desirable result.

The modern way would be to scan all the documents to create a PDF record from which copies could be printed.

Photographs that we used to get from the chemist or now print them off ourselves from the machines in supermarkets etc are called 'continuous tone' images. Although nowadays it is a digital process, it still uses proper light sensitive paper so you can't actually see any dots. Images printed off desktop inkjet printers are made up of thousands of tiny dots in a dither pattern - the dot is now so fine that these images would also photocopy quite badly. The only images that would photocopy OK are what are called halftones - they are created using a screen of dots that the photocopier can see and reproduce - hence the expression in printing 'dot for dot'.

Halftones also appear in commercially printed material using a lithographic press - each colour is made from a pattern of dots from the four primary colours Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black. If you look at a colour magazine through a magnifying glass you would see a pattern in the shape of a rosette - it's this uniform dot that allows it to be photocopied ok.

A modern photocopier would have scanned the originals (effectively turning them into halftones) and the results would have been much, much clearer.

Unfortunately in this case the PJ used an old photocopier to make duplicates which is why the photos look crap.
.

Thanks for that. To my primitive brain scan / photocopier it’s all the same although of course it isn’t. Great explanation for a duffer like me. Just one other question . When was the ‘scratching out of eyes’ done to the photographs? After photocopying?

by NickE 18.01.17 22:18

Is it confirmed that the time for the photo was 1:29 and not 2:29?

by kaz 19.01.17 13:58

NickE wrote:Is it confirmed that the time for the photo was 1:29 and not 2:29?

Admittedly it doesn’t take much to confuse me but surely it was either 2.29 or 3.29 in Portugal depending on whether or not the McCanns’ camera ‘s ‘clock’ had been adjusted for Summertime ? Of course though, it could have been ANY time if the camera’s data had been altered

by MayMuse 02.03.17 7:21

Equity wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Snipped...

According to this video:

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

...the Tennis Balls Photo was released on 7 or 8 May.

The maker of that video says that the photo was 'created on 5 May' (i.e. after Madeleine was reported missing) and she adds what I assume are the EXIF data.

Others suggest that the photo was 'amended' for publication on 5 May but was taken earlier.

Not being a 'tecchie', I have no idea which is right.

Hi Tony

If you look at that YouTube vid closely you can just make out the Exif Data they refer to. The software they are using is not 'special' - it's 'ExifTool' which has been a free download for the past 16 years.

It is obviously NOT the original image data as a description of the image has been added together with copyright information regarding storage and use (looks like AP Images who are based in the USA as the dimensions are also in inches). Some newsrooms and photo libraries have their own image handling workflows (sometimes a Photoshop Plug-in) which will automatically generate a creation and modification date when it enters their system. This seems likely as the dimensions and resolutions do not look normal for an original image straight off the camera - the time stamp also looks as if it reads 00:00:00.

The person who made the YouTube vid you linked to has no idea how to interpret the Exif data. The creation date showing is not the date from the camera and even if it were it would be dependent on how accurate the date and time on the camera happened to be. Exif data merely records the settings from the camera - it's not some sort of spooky artificial intelligence.

I hold a copy of the original 'last photo' from the old 3As days. If I open that file and save it with a different name the creation date stays the same but the modification date will be updated - if however, I copy and paste it into a new photoshop file it will have a NEW creation AND modification date (but all the original camera data will be lost).

I have retouched images professionally using photoshop since it was first launched and for years before then I was an apprentice served colour retoucher and retouched both printed images and positives using an airbrush. As soon as I received the original high resolution 'last photo' way back in 2008 I posted a full explanation of why the image was not 'fake' - at least not fake in the ways many people were suggesting - unfortunately this triggered my receiving a barrage of wholly unexpected abuse so I have always avoided the subject - up until now of course as I think the issue has finally been put to bed and this seems a nice friendly place :-)

I foolishly emailed another member an image I created swapping where M and A were sitting to show I was proficient in using Photoshop - I only spent about 10 minutes doing it so far from perfect - but to my horror I started seeing it used as 'evidence' that the 'last photo' was fake!

It still makes me smile when I read some people say an image has been 'photoshopped' when they obviously haven't fully thought through what they mean by 'being photoshopped'. Photoshop is a fantastic piece of software and has very few limitations. It does have limitations however that I suppose are obvious if you use it every day but some people became 'experts' despite never using the software in their lives. In their imagination they think Photoshop just 'photoshops' things - if you want Madeleine sitting perfectly with her sister and father by a swimming pool (although she's not actually there) you just use the 'add 4 year old girl to image' brush - job done :-)

.

Great information [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], but which photo are you talking about as the last photo has been proven not to be a fake (other than the date taken) and the photo mentioned with the data being discussed ( see above ) is the "tennis photo"?

A little confused, so if you could clarify please.

by JRP 02.03.17 9:27

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The discussion was about the Tennis Balls photo, the video link explains the comments by Equity.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.17 17:06

Some interesting posts on the Last Photo have been made recently in another place.

The first poster agrees that the Last Photo was taken on Sunday and that something serious must have happened to Madeleine Sunday night or Monday morning.

The second poster agrees that the Last Photo was taken on the Sunday but is adamant that Mrs Fenn really did hear Madeleine crying on the evening of Tuesday 1 May.

The third poster thinks that the Last Photo may have been taken after Thursday 3 May and Madeleine photoshopped in afterwards.

Here are the three posts, with my comments:

POSTER ONE

It suits the agenda to show she was alive on Sunday for some reason. (bolded in the original).

REPLY: Yes.

Later in the week there were other supposed witnesses placing her as alive, notably Cat Baker, so why would they need to fake the date on a photo to prove this again? If she was alive on Thursday according to how Cat's statement was promoted, then she had to have been alive on Sunday. We also had the cleaner placing her alive on Sunday. No need to change dates on a photo to corroborate it.

REPLY: Yes, no need to prove she was alive on Sunday.

So, the only reason to produce a photo showing her as alive on Thursday was because they suspected they didn't have any other evidence to show that she was.

REPLY: Yes.

And yet they had Cat saying (to begin with) that she was in creche and at high tea and we have the Boyds whose little boy supposedly played football with M, if not on the Thursday then on the Wednesday. There is some confusion over which date they invented for this scenario.

REPLY: HideHo has produced probably the best analysis of this alleged ‘high tea’ and all the multiple contradictions by the four people who gave evidence about it (Gerry & Kate McCann, Catriona Baker and Charlotte Pennington). Looking at all those multiple contradictions, it is hardly surprising if people draw the conclusion that Madeleine wasn’t there, or even that the high tea never happened at all. As for the claims of the Boyds, there are again multiple reasons for saying, as ‘POSTER ONE’ does, that their account is ‘invented’. Why was it invented? Who arranged for this article to appear?

===============================================

POSTER TWO

Yes, especially to the bold part. It suits the agenda because, imo, on Sunday, Madeleine was not only alive but alive and well.

REPLY: Yes.

Hence we have the very credible eye-witness report from the cleaner which corroborates very accurately with what Kate writes about what they did on Sunday and at what times. Kate did not need to lie about events on Sunday, imo, because Madeleine was still alive and well on Sunday. IMO after Sunday she was not alive and well.

REPLY: Yes, there is multiple evidence to support this.

By the time of David Payne's alleged visit to the McCanns apartment in the late afternoon/early evening of that fateful Thursday I do believe that Madeleine was dead. Hence DP's brain leak about all three children dressed predominantly in white and looking like angels and Matt flagging up searching on Cemetery Road late on Thursday night or the early hours of Friday morning. That would mean, imo, that Madeleine died at some point between 'something' happening on Sunday evening or the early hours of Monday morning and the time of the DP visit to apartment 5A in the early evening of that fateful Thursday.

REPLY: Yes. Correct.

Kate, in her book, does not mention the Sunday evening quiz night at the Tapas which would have been memorable, imo.

REPLY: A very good observation.

There are lies and there are lies of omission. The latter is a lie of omission I suspect. Nor does Kate mention events of Monday during the day. Again I suggest this is indicative of an area of great sensitivity.

REPLY: Another very valid observation.

However Kate does write about visiting the local supermarket in the evening on Monday with Fiona to stock up on essentials. It would be interesting to see what these essentials were. I wonder if the police ever went through Baptista till receipts?

REPLY: Ah!

Gerry had already - according to Kate in her book - visited the supermarket (on Sunday?) to buy food for breakfasts as the Millennium was apparently too far to walk to every morning . Gerry's pockets seem quite stitched up so I find it difficult to believe he and Kate would not have wanted to take advantage of the included MW breakfasts. Especially as the couple were also having lunch at the apartment as well after Sunday. Two meals in an apartment each day with three young children is quite a lot of work and messy! Plus the children would want to be with their friends.

REPLY: Again, yes. There had to be a very significant reason for the sudden change of plans from Monday onwards.

I very much suspect that the decision to have breakfast at the apartment rather than the Millennium was nothing to do with the walk and everything to do with what might have happened on Sunday evening. By Monday, there was a need to hide away from prying eyes, imo. This would also account for why they never joined their friends for lunch apart from on Sunday I think. (Or so they claim! I wonder if the twins plus one parent perhaps did have lunch at the Payne's apartment that week though...)

REPLY: Yes, more very good observations.

Kate, in her book, claims that Monday was a day where they slotted into the routine. Yet a routine had hardly been established. It was only the second full day of the holiday. The routine was only just beginning so you would expect Kate to outline all the events of Monday as everything was fresh and new. Would the children settle? What did they do? But there is nothing about that day.
I suspect that this is the day when, far from slotting into the routine, they did anything but. They were forced to deviate from the routine on this day in my opinion. Hence, perhaps, the early evening supermarket visit (if it ever took place - perhaps it did but on Monday morning rather than evening because of whatever might have happened on Sunday evening...)

REPLY: More very valid observations.

After the uneventful Monday, Kate gives accounts of what happened on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. None of the accounts ring true to me. And the photographic 'evidence' does not ring true either. Again, there is no account of the quiz night on Tuesday when it is on record that GM invited the quiz host[ess] to the TM table. Another major omission which I think signifies great sensitivity.

REPLY: Agreed, except that I’m not sure that Gerry ‘inviting the quiz hostess to the
TM table' is sufficiently proved.

Robert Murat flies out at the last minute, allegedly, arriving early on Tuesday morning. I think he was brought in - possibly quite unwittingly - because a 'disaster' was unfolding and he had knowledge of the local area, local people plus access to property and apartments perhaps.

REPLY: I don’t think Murat came ‘quite unwittingly’.

I think at this stage Madeleine might still have been alive. On Tuesday evening Kate leaves the dinner table early, according to police, and this is the evening that Gerry is said to have invited the bubbly quiz host[ess] to the table. The Portuguese police think the green-eyed monster was responsible for her going off in a huff. It just so happens that this is the night that neighbour Mrs Fenn hears prolonged crying coming from apartment 5A from 10.30am until 11.45. This is a very long time indeed for a child - or adult even - to cry and is a huge red flag, imo. The crying, according to Mrs Fenn, becomes more anguished and intense. Again, this is indicative of someone in huge distress. In the context of a child going missing in suspicious circumstances it would be ridiculous not to take this eye-witness account into serious consideration. The crying stops very abruptly when Mrs Fenn hears the patio doors either opening or closing, signifying someone entering or possibly departing. If a person has been deeply distressed and sobbing you would expect the crying to become less intense when they are being comforted. This would take some time - it would not stop abruptly.

REPLY: All of this paragraph is based on accepting Mrs Fenn’s statement as the ‘Gospel truth’. There are so many reasons why we simply cannot do that. Here are some of them:

1 Her account was not given until 20 August 2007 – 112 days after the ‘crying incident’ allegedly happened

2 What she was going to tell the police was actually trailed widely across the British mainstream press two days beforehand – with information about it supplied by a ‘source’, almost certainly the McCanns’ PR chief, Clarence Mitchell

3 The story appeared just days after a rash of extremely unfavourable newspaper stories about the ‘smell of death’ and Madeleine’s blood being found in the McCanns’ apartment and in their hired car. This gave a motive for producing a story which confirmed the McCanns’ narrative that they were leaving the children on their own for significant periods each night

4 The contrived reference by Mrs Fenn to having heard the cries of a child ‘more than two years old’ suggested that her statement was deliberately crafted by her and/or others to identify Madeleine as the child allegedly crying

5 It is not possible to distinguish between the cries of a two-year-old and a three-year-old

6 Most people who have read Mrs Fenn’s statement have great difficulty in accepting that any child could cry louder and louder (which is her evidence) for 75 minutes

7 She took no action to tell anybody about this alleged long bout of distressed crying

8 Despite the loudness and the length of the crying (75 minutes), not one other person reported hearing this crying

9 Mrs Fenn claimed to have ’phoned a friend, Mrs Edna Glyn, at about 11pm that night. There is no statement in the PJ files from Mrs Glyn confirming this call. Besides, the only Edna Glyn who could be identified was a Mrs Edna Glyn living on the Isle of Man. There must be real doubt as to whether one old lady would ’phone another old lady at 11pm at night

10 Mrs Fenn also claimed that she had had a burglary some time before the McCanns came on holiday. There were multiple versions of when this burglary is supposed to have happened: on week before, or two, three, or ‘several’. The incident itself was not described consistently. The preferred version seemed to be that 82-year-old Mrs Fenn as she nearly caught the burglar by the ankle as he leapt 15 feet out of a first floor window to a patio below. No-one else reported this incident. It was unclear whether Mrs Fenn actually reported this burglary; some accounts say she did; some say she didn’t. There were far too many contradictions for anyone to declare with confidence that this alleged burglary really happened.

No-one who still believes Mrs Fenn’s account has yet been able to properly explain all the above.

IMO this is suggestive of a certain scenario. Perhaps a scenario in which a child is not comforted but instead perhaps someone decides to silence the child? Kate's phone is in use in the 15 minutes prior to this crying outburst according to Portuguese police - apparently one of the only times prior to Madeleine going missing that she uses her phone after dinner. I wonder who she was phoning and why? Is it possible she was agitated and angry, perhaps? Is it possible that she wasn't even in apartment 5A but in another apartment, perhaps being comforted by a friend trying to calm her down after having been humiliated maybe? Possibly someone alerts TM to the crying coming from apartment 5A ...Theories, as always...

REPLY: All the above is sheer speculation based on accepting without qualification that Mrs Fenn’s account is true.

===============================================

POSTER THREE (Poster Three is 'chirpyinsect')

For me the problem I have is from the strict adherence to their tenet that the Last Photo was taken on the Sunday and no other possibility can be considered. I grant them that the Sunday is the only day where the weather was similar BEFORE the 3rd

REPLY: Good, that’s agreed then.

but they absolutely will not have it that it could have been taken after the 3rd. The reason they will not is that obviously M was not around by then so that means the photo was an invention and we can't have that, can we?

REPLY: We can have it , of course, if there is any evidence for it. But there simply isn’t any such evidence. Moreover, there is positive evidence against such an idea, notably the shadows on the photograph which all experts agree are wholly inconsistent across the photograph and could not have been faked.

In the great scheme of things altering the date is still subterfuge but, think about it, it could be "excused" as them just trying to create a happy family holiday using one of the few "legitimate" snaps they had. Not excusable in my eyes though.

REPLY: Surely no-one can justify deliberately misleading the public about the crucial date of a photograph of one’s missing daughter?

If TB is no longer allowed to comment on the case,

REPLY: Where does he get this idea from? Where does it say anywhere that I am not able to comment on the case?

how does he get away with hammering the point that the naughty Macs altered the date on a photo? Simples. It suits the agenda to show she was alive on Sunday for some reason.

REPLY: ‘For some reason’? For what reason?

QUOTED FROM POSTER ONE

Later in the week there were other supposed witnesses placing her as alive, notably Cat Baker, so why would they need to fake the date on a photo to prove this again? If she was alive on Thursday according to how Cat's statement was promoted, then she had to have been alive on Sunday. We also had the cleaner placing her alive on Sunday. No need to change dates on a photo to corroborate it.

So, the only reason to produce a photo showing her as alive on Thursday was because they suspected they didn't have any other evidence to show that she was.

And yet they had Cat saying ( to begin with) that she was in creche and at high tea and we have the Boyds whose little boy supposedly played football with M, if not on the Thursday then on the Wednesday. There is some confusion over which date they invented for this scenario.

UNQUOTE POSTER ONE

REPLY: All of those three paragraphs are certainly a reasonable proposition.

We have gone round and round on this for years and the manufactured inter forum rivalry on whether the LP has been shopped or "only" date altered has prevented us from really analysing why the altered date would even be necessary.

REPLY: There’s no ‘manufactured inter forum rivalry’ on CMOMM’s part. We simply had a group of committed and competent members, led by the intensive research work of PeterMac, which led us inexorably to the conclusion that the evidence was overwhhelming that favoured the Last Photo being taken on the Sunday at lunchtime.

Can anyone think of a reason why a genuine photo that was taken on the Sunday would need to be pushed as having been taken on the Thursday, risking discovery of changed metadata? Why not just promote it as a happy picture of a healthy M taken earlier in the holiday?

REPLY: POSTER ONE gave the obvious answer to that one.

So for me the McCanns are happy to allow TB to promote the Last Photo as taken on Sunday. He pushes it for all he is worth because the Last Photo is photoshopped and the child we see in it is either not Madeleine McCann or bears no resemblance at that time to the child we knew as her.
They must steer us away from photoshopping at all costs, hence the ridicule of people like canada12 who may or may not have been on to something. Can't take the chance eh CMoMM?

REPLY: See where this obsession people have that the Last Photo is photoshopped gets them! He ignores two acknowledged experts who both agree there is no evidence at all of photoshopping. He cannot accept the simple yet sinister explanation that the metadata on the Last Photo may have been altered.

He prefers a complicated explanation about the photograph having been taken after 3^rd May and then Madeleine shopped in! He then contradicts himself by doubting whether it is Madeleine anyway! QUOTE THIRD POSTER > “The child we see in it is either not Madeleine McCann r bears no resemblance at that time to the child we knew as her”. He actually thinks that canada12 ‘may be on to something’ because she interprets what are manifestly digital artefacts as a clothes pattern transferred onto Madeleine’s neck, face and lips. Which photoshopping theory does he go for? canada12’s? Textusa’s? Or one of the many others? There are several dozen rival photoshopping theories, every single one contradicting all the others!

And then, last of all, he suggests that the Last Photo being taken on Sunday is a cosy plot between me and the McCanns! And CMOMM is ‘in on the plot: QUOTE THIRD POSTER > “Can't take the chance eh CMoMM?” He seems to ignore the fact that a whole host of independent researchers have also reached the ame conclusion e.g. PeterMac, HideHo, Richard Hall and Jill Havern.

It is a struggle to explain how anyone could possibly come up with all this complete nonsense.

.

by Guest 28.03.17 17:19

Photoshop again.

I bet it's one of the same people who failed to show it here.

There is zero% chance that the picture is photo-shopped.

We've addressed every single issue on it (in this thread probably).

by JRP 28.03.17 23:59

"So for me the McCanns are happy to allow TB to promote the Last Photo as taken on Sunday. He pushes it for all he is worth because the Last Photo is photoshopped and the child we see in it is either not Madeleine McCann or bears no resemblance at that time to the child we knew as her".
They must steer us away from photoshopping at all costs, hence the ridicule of people like canada12 who may or may not have been on to something. Can't take the chance eh CMoMM?"

So let's just get this right, what you're saying is, somebody went to all the trouble of photoshopping a girl into the Last Photo, and the girl isn't Madeleine McCann? And the point of doing that would be?

I thought canada12 said that the head of Madeleine in the last photo had been taken from a photo of her wearing a flowered dress, and the photoshopper forgot to erase the flowers on her shoulder properly.
So, does that mean that the girl in the flower dress isn't Madeleine either?

I'm with Bluebag... we've done the Last Photo to death

by Guest 29.03.17 0:14

Or maybe - just maybe - the iconic 'last photograph' was taken on Sunday 29th April 2007, when the creche was closed and Madeleine was showing off her new holiday outfit for all to see at the poolside.

Maybe - just maybe - the time/date of the iconic 'last photograph' was altered to show Madeleine was alive and well on Thursday 3rd May 2007, only a few hours before she was abducted.

It's not rocket science.

by Phoebe 29.03.17 1:13

Oh dear Verdi, poor Gerry was so confused on May 10th in his statement to the P.J that he claims his kids were in creche on Sunday. According to him, after breakfasting at the Millenium ( the only day they did, so it should stick in his mind) they dropped the twins and Madeleine to their creches and then went shopping to the supermarket. He even collected his kids from the closed creches at 12.30 for lunch. It was definitely Sunday 'cos Matt was languishing on a sun lounger on his veranda after his first night "runs". Then they took the kids back to the closed creche at 2.40pm for the afternoon until the nannies took them back for tapas high tea at 5pm. Go figure.

by Guest 29.03.17 7:03

Verdi wrote:Or maybe - just maybe - the iconic 'last photograph' was taken on Sunday 29th April 2007, when the creche was closed and Madeleine was showing off her new holiday outfit for all to see at the poolside.

Maybe - just maybe - the time/date of the iconic 'last photograph' was altered to show Madeleine was alive and well on Thursday 3rd May 2007, only a few hours before she was abducted.

It's not rocket science.

Or just maybe someone wants to muddy the waters for the last photo by surrounding it with nonsense and getting people to argue over it.

Well they failed.

I question the motives of people who don't back down when presented with unarguable facts - these days, my first assumption after many years debating serious questions on all kinds of forums is, they are doing it deliberately because the serious people get pointed at as nutters by association.

by Guest 29.03.17 12:19

Phoebe wrote:Oh dear Verdi, poor Gerry was so confused on May 10th in his statement to the P.J that he claims his kids were in creche on Sunday. According to him, after breakfasting at the Millenium ( the only day they did, so it should stick in his mind) they dropped the twins and Madeleine to their creches and then went shopping to the supermarket. He even collected his kids from the closed creches at 12.30 for lunch. It was definitely Sunday 'cos Matt was languishing on a sun lounger on his veranda after his first night "runs". Then they took the kids back to the closed creche at 2.40pm for the afternoon until the nannies took them back for tapas high tea at 5pm. Go figure.

I don't know about Gerry McCann, seems to me the whole lot of them were in a state of confusion. Question is - was the crèche open on a Sunday, or was it only open for guests to register their children and get to know the staff?

Catriona Baker witness statement 6th May 2007

When asked she states that she knows the McCann family since last Sunday, 29th April, 2007, when they enrolled their daughter in the “Minis” service. She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning.

Catriona Baker rogatory interview April 2008

I got to know Gerry and Kate McCann on the Sunday morning, 29.04.2007, in the Minis Club. They brought the children and as it was their first day of holidays the normal procedure was that they were allocated a childcare worker. I had previously written the children's bracelets which included their name, allergies and relevant information.

Amy Tierney [Head of the Baby Club and Mini Club] witness statement 6th May 2007

The hours of the club are from 09.00 to 12.30 and from 14.30 to 17.30, the club is closed on Sundays on that day it only offers the dinner service.
----------

According to the PJ files, this is the Lobster Club (Madeleine's group) register for Sunday 29th April 2007, although as can be seen, it's not dated...

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

What a shambles - still confusion is good!

by RosieandSam 29.03.17 13:40

@ Tony Bennett

Besides, the only Edna Glyn who could be identified was a Mrs Edna Glyn living on the Isle of Man. There must be real doubt as to whether one old lady would ’phone another old lady at 11pm at night

I have no knowledge about Mrs Glyn, but there is a family link to the Isle of Man. Simon Cowell is the brother of Ann-Marie Wright and son of Shiela Cowell (both now living in Skipton).

SIMON AND MIRIAM COWELL (37 and 29 respectively) Year 2007
Simon Cowell is a first cousin of Kate McCann. He and his wife Miriam live in Onchan on the Isle of Man with their 15-month-old daughter Lily and 6 year old son Thomas who attends Fairfield School. Simon is the son of Sheila Cowell and brother to Anne-Marie Wright. He is an iSeries Technical Support and Operations Supervisor at Zurich International Life (from May 2007). Michael Wright has been relaying information about the campaign to him from the very beginning. When Kate and Gerry were made arguidos he said, 'The whole way through Kate and Gerry have been the Portuguese police's greatest supporters and they have always been saying they are doing their jobs and after this long they have come up with this accusation that is totally ridiculous and none of the so-called hard evidence seems to stand up. Kate and Gerry are preparing themselves legally for what happens next. They are just trying to get the best support and advice they can to deal with the allegations.'

Michael Wright himself lived on the Isle of Man and attended Ballakermeen High School from 1976 before moving to Bridlington in 1978. In 1981 he joined St John Fisher RC High School in Harrogate. He had a short career in the military before moving into information technology. In 2000 he joined Alaric Systems but in 2007 was described as 'owning a software company in Leeds'.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - POSTED Tue 11-09-2007

McCann cousin on family's trauma

by Manx Radio

The cousin of Kate McCann, mother of missing toddler Madeleine McCann, has spoken of the family’s trauma at the latest revelations.

Kate and husband Gerry McCann are both official suspects in the hunt for the four year old, who disappeared during a family holiday in Portugal in May.

Onchan resident Simon Cowell, first cousin to Kate, says it’s a distressing time for the family, but they remain strong.

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

by Phoebe 29.03.17 16:08

The nannies statements smack of ass-covering lies. Amy Tierney and Leanne Wagstaff both claim that Sunday is the day the creche service is closed while Jaqueline Williams claims that it is Saturday. Meanwhile Lyndsay Johnson, the overall manager of the kids club mentions no closed day at all, but is clear that Gerry and Kate went on the sailing trip with Madeleine! Nothing from creche re seeing Madeleine that week can be trusted. She is variously described as noticeably quiet and calm or talkative and gregarious. No wonder team McC were so keen to date the pool photo to May 3rd.

by Guest 29.03.17 23:59

Once upon a time there was a little girl called Madeleine. Madeleine lived with her mummy and daddy and baby brother and sister in a nice little place in England - until she was nearly four years old.

One special day, Madeleine was aroused early from her slumbers - she was going on an adventure - a magical week of fun and laughter with her family that she loved so much. She ran to tell - come on Amie come on Sawnie we're going on an adventure; they tumbled and screamed with excitement about their new adventure while big sister Maddie packed her pink 'my little pony' bag with all her favourite things and sat her special cuddlecat on top to guard all her treasures.

Off they went in a whirl of glee, laughing skipping frolicking in the fun of their special adventure - mummy and daddy trailing along behind to the big place somewhere beyond leading to a new place of discovery. Little Maddie ran holding hands with her new best friend towards the great big shiny stairs that would take them into the sky on a voyage of discovery. Maddie fell on a stair - she stopped - shall I cry - no - up the stairway to a new adventure.

The hours seemed long, Maddie was weary, why does it take so long - when are we going to get there. Finally - a big new playground full of novelty for an endless time of expectation. Then comes drowsiness - the long day takes it's toll and sleep overwhelms little Maddie into a world of dreams.

Next morning little Maddie awakes full of life and excitement. wondering what the day would bring but she's hungry. After food, she goes with mummy and daddy to meet a nice lady called Cat who will look after her every day in the playroom while Amie and Sawnie are in another room with another lady. Then back at their new house, Maddie puts on her new holiday clothes and skips to the swimming pool with Amie and Sawnie and mummy and daddy to explore all the shiny new things to play with. Cheeeze time - little Maddie sits with little sister Amie and daddy at the edge of the swimming pool, happy and laughing at some childlike thought - mummy and baby brother Sawnie taking the picture on their camera.

Then - and then - and then - and then - darkness......

THE END

by **Nina** 30.03.17 0:08

Verdi wrote:Once upon a time there was a little girl called Madeleine. Madeleine lived with her mummy and daddy and baby brother and sister in a nice little place in England - until she was nearly four years old.

One special day, Madeleine was aroused early from her slumbers - she was going on an adventure - a magical week of fun and laughter with her family that she loved so much. She ran to tell - come on Amie come on Sawnie we're going on an adventure; they tumbled and screamed with excitement about their new adventure while big sister Maddie packed her pink 'my little pony' bag with all her favourite things and sat her special cuddlecat on top to guard all her treasures.

Off they went in a whirl of glee, laughing skipping frolicing in the fun of their special adventure - mummy and daddy trailing along behind to the big place somewhere beyond leading to a new place of discovery. Little Maddie ran holding hands with her new best friend towards the great big shiney stairs that would take them into the sky on a voyage of discovery. Maddie fell on a stair - she stopped - shall I cry - no - up the stairway to a new adventure.

The hours seemed long, Maddie was weary, why does it take so long - when are we going to get there. Finally - a big new playground full of novelty for an endless time of expectation. Then comes drowsiness - the long day takes it's toll and sleep overwhelms little Maddie into a world of dreams.

Next morning little Maddie awakes full of life and excitement. wondering what the day would bring but she's hungry. After food, she goes with mummy and daddy to meet a nice lady called Cat who will look after her every day in the playroom while Amie and Sawnie are in another room with another lady. Then back at their new house, Maddie puts on her new holiday clothes and skips to the swimming pool with Amie and Sawnie and mummy and daddy to explore all the shiny new things to play with. Cheeeze time - little Maddie sits with little sister Amie and daddy at the edge of the swimming pool, happy and laughing at some childlike thought - mummy and baby brother Sawnie taking the picture on their camera.

Then - and then - and then - and then - darkness......

THE END

by Guest 30.03.17 0:23

Sorry Nina sad

.

by Constablekid 30.03.17 0:48

Sorry if this question has already been raised. Above I saw that Bluebag says every theory about photoshopping of the last photo has been addressed but I have skimmed through this whole thread and others on this site and I can't find the answer to my question so I hope you don't mind me asking it here.

I know there's been amazing research done into the shadows of the photo and weather from that week which points to the photo being from the Sunday which I totally agree with.

My question is about the sun glasses. I was really fascinated by the theory on this blog about the possibility of the sunglasses being photoshopped. Has this theory (of the pool reflection being wrong way up in the glasses) been disproved? If so can someone post a link to where I can read about the problems with that theory? It seemed pretty convincing
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think I read somewhere else that this could have been done to cover a bruise?

Sorry again if this has already been discussed to death.

by Guest 30.03.17 1:17

Constablekid wrote:Sorry if this question has already been raised. Above I saw that Bluebag says every theory about photoshopping of the last photo has been addressed but I have skimmed through this whole thread and others on this site and I can't find the answer to my question so I hope you don't mind me asking it here.

I know there's been amazing research done into the shadows of the photo and weather from that week which points to the photo being from the Sunday which I totally agree with.

My question is about the sun glasses. I was really fascinated by the theory on this blog about the possibility of the sunglasses being photoshopped. Has this theory (of the pool reflection being wrong way up in the glasses) been disproved? If so can someone post a link to where I can read about the problems with that theory? It seemed pretty convincing
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I think I read somewhere else that this could have been done to cover a bruise?

Sorry again if this has already been discussed to death.

This will hopefully answer your question..

Darren Ware is a member of CMoMM and a bit of a boffin.

by Guest 30.03.17 7:20

Constablekid wrote:My question is about the sun glasses. I was really fascinated by the theory on this blog about the possibility of the sunglasses being photoshopped.
Sorry again if this has already been discussed to death.

Yes they were discussed to death.