Is Robert Murat About To Close This Case?

not dodgy just similar, ok you're right blommin well dodgy   Will be interesting to see how this play's out Tony

Lara wrote:not dodgy just similar, ok you're right blommin well dodgy   Will be interesting to see how this play's out Tony

@ Lara

But please see the following extract from my 2010 article on Murat: 'From Arguido to Applause', especially the bits in red:

+++++++++++++++++++++++

So by 1 January, Murat was back in the frame, at least according to Dr Kate McCann and the Daily Mail, with Dr Kate McCann strongly hinting at ‘questions which need to be answered’ and ‘doubts’.

Extraordinarily, just one week later, the Daily Mail ran a story which said exactly the reverse. One could be forgiven for thinking that those responsible for the McCanns’ public relations were not happy with the 1 January article and wished to change it.

So here’s what Vanessa Allen wrote in the Mail just one week later:

QUOTE

Madeleine witnesses ‘may have mistaken this friend of the McCanns for Murat’ on night she disappeared [ [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ]

“Doubt was cast on the evidence of several key witnesses in the Madeleine McCann disappearance last night. Those who said they saw suspect Robert Murat outside the family's holiday apartment on the night she vanished may have named the wrong man, it was revealed.

“Detectives believe the witnesses who said they saw the British expat could have confused him with a friend of Kate and Gerry McCann, David Payne, who was out searching for the missing three-year-old…

“A series of witnesses have given statements claiming to have seen him around the Ocean Club apartment complex in the hours after Mrs McCann, 39, raised the alarm. They include three friends of the McCanns, Russell O'Brien, Fiona Payne and Rachael Oldfield, who later confronted Mr Murat at a police station after he was made a suspect and said he offered to help them search that night.

“Mark Warner nanny Charlotte Pennington said she saw him hanging around outside the Ocean Club's reception at about 10pm. British holidaymaker Jayne Jensen, an unnamed British barrister and two unidentified British tourists all claim to have seen him around the complex that night.

“But none of them knew the 34-year-old property consultant before that night. Police are examining the theory that they could have confused him with Dr David Payne. The medical researcher, who is 41, was searching around the complex that night and - in a street lit by orange streetlights - could easily have been mistaken for Mr Murat. Mr Murat's lawyer Francisco Pagarete told the Daily Mail: ‘Robert has always said the witnesses were mistaken. He was not there that night’.

“A source close to the inquiry said: ‘The similarity between the two has rendered many witness accounts virtually worthless’.

But he added: ‘What is baffling is that Mr Payne's wife and two of his friends are among those who claim to have seen Mr Murat outside the McCanns' apartment that night. You'd think a wife would recognise her own husband’.”

UNQUOTE

The story had changed dramatically, within a week, from ‘Eight people saw Robert Murat that night’ to ‘They all probably mistook him for Dr David Payne’. At least the Daily Mail told its readers at the end of the article how utterly absurd it was to suggest that Fiona Payne she might have mistaken Robert Murat for her own husband. It was another story that had the imprint of media manipulator Clarence Mitchell all over it.

Tony, you and me have been following this case from day one, through all the forums, I agree there is something not quite right.
I read the .Madeleine book recently, and had more doubts.
What I do know is the abduction is not really believable under the times given for the checks, what I do know is Eddie and Keela would not lie, the timelines are either a mistake or an invention and I still believe it was 2nd unless it happened even earlier which is entirely possible, maybe the 2nd if not before, lets have some leeway. Maddie Maddie Maddie or was it daddy Daddy daddy.
I am now doing a forensic science course
I do have a feeling this case will be solved soon, because I'm not going anywhere and neither are you.
For me it all points to a tragic accident although if that happened to one of my kids I would be devastated unable to function, even the thought of it.
Goodnight  

I can't imagine that the 'window, innocent in 15 seconds, washer' would be too 'impressed' by Operation Strange's re-questioning of RM, can you?

HE 'supposedly' offered RM a 'job' didn't he?

Who knows what RM TOLD 'officers', last week, about that particular 'offer' and WHY he was 'offered' it.

JOB 'offer'  to RM, 'backed' up, i believe, by RM's lawyer, who was witness to 'talks?'

istbc, on that.

Or indeed, what information, RM might have told officers, last week, about ANY er 'meetings' between himself and er, um, y'know, erm 'representatives' of erm, 'interested' parties, at the height of 'investigations'?  (2007)

Not sure where this twitter story has originated from, but interesting if true:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
SY asking same 253 questions of pig farmer, Murat, Walczuch, laundryman - waste of time.
But PJ wanting to re-interrogate RM - interesting.
   
6:40 AM - 19 Dec 2014
 

And there’s a new Lazz up this afternoon as well:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Doug D wrote:Not sure where this twitter story has originated from, but interesting if true:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
SY asking same 253 questions of pig farmer, Murat, Walczuch, laundryman - waste of time.
But PJ wanting to re-interrogate RM - interesting.
   
6:40 AM - 19 Dec 2014
 

And there’s a new Lazz up this afternoon as well:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

...and another great post from l-azz

Doug D wrote:Not sure where this twitter story has originated from, but interesting if true:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
SY asking same 253 questions of pig farmer, Murat, Walczuch, laundryman - waste of time.
But PJ wanting to re-interrogate RM - interesting.
   
6:40 AM - 19 Dec 2014
 

And there’s a new Lazz up this afternoon as well:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If true, it's another one of those Oh Lordie Lordie Lord moments....when you're hit in the face with something you least expect......PJ wanting to "re-interrogate" RM...  third time recuring....interesting!
 
If true, give it time for Santa Claus and his reindeer to masticate the mince pie and carrot and gone back to lapland to hibernate once again, then the "re-interrogation" will recur will be a good bet.

As again, I-azz has written an excellent one.  

I am particularly drawn to this:  "It's not us that has committed this crime, it's the person who has gone into that apartment and taken a little girl away from her family"  and am taken aback how I'd missed Kate's trip up.  


It's her admission - that they'd not committed "this" crime...that intrigues me.
   
A denial when no direct accusation (of any particular crime) had been put to her is an odd thing to say. Also, what's "this" (nature of) crime that's held in her mind when she volunteer a denial.

Using "little girl" and "her family" seem detached, cold and impersonal. Why not use "Madeleine" and "us" when talking about her beloved missing Madeleine.  

Ironically, that is an inverse-emotion statement -  the first half mirrors emotion filled touche feely personal (raw and sensitive to her) - whereas the latter half reflects detachment (no reality) as if she was bearing an abstract child in mind when she said that, since she "knew" EXACTLY what happened to the tangible child.

Tony Bennett wrote:Here's a very interesting message put down anonymously the other day on the 'CRISTOBELL UNSOUND' blog run by Rosalinda Hutton.

I've tidied it up slightly for spelling and punctuation:

QUOTE

Cristobell.

You're like mother Teresa or even Jenny Murat on your defending of Robert Murat.

You say things like "Robert would not hurt a fly" and "Robert loves children" and "Robert just got a bit of porn on his computer" and "Robert just told a few lies to the police".

Well, Robert heard no commotion on the night of Thursday 3rd May - yet he lives only yards away [from Apartment G5A].

Robert hires a car.

Robert has a strange chat with Martin Brunt.

Gerry McCann is asked "Do you know Robert Murat?" He answers 'No comment'.

Jenny Murat...
Sally Eveleigh...
Sergei Malinka...
Ralph Eveleigh...
Fazackerley...

all more dodgy than Robert Murat's eye

UNQUOTE

What can it all mean?

Further to the above post back in December on Cristobell's blog, and being reminded of the many queries about Robert Murat's role in this whole affair, I went back to look at the report by Inspector Pedro Varanda -  the inspector who was so troubled by Murat's conduct as translator that on 11 May 2007 - eight days into the investigation - he penned an urgent note to the investigation co-ordinator, Dr Goncalo Amaral.

I've extracted his main comments.

They are damning.

Here they are:


1. ‘displaying an unusual curiosity about the investigation’

2. ‘insistently - and repeatedly - questioned me about the identity of possible suspects’

3. ‘insistently - and repeatedly - questioned me about the strategy outlined by the head  of the investigation’

4. ‘insistently - and repeatedly - questioned me about and the work that might possibly have been considered for the coming days’

5. ‘unusual and absolutely inappropriate’ behaviour

6. ‘covertly trying to catch glimpses of various items being prepared for the case files’

7. Persistently tried to influence the conduct of the investigation.


Inspector Varanda was also concerned that Murat:

'manifested an enormous knowledge about the functioning of the "Ocean Club" and

‘manifested an enormous knowledge about the routines followed by the McCann family’.  

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That all creates a giant question mark. WHY did Robert Murat act like this?

I can think of only four possible answers:

A. He was a naturally curious and helpful person and was doing his level best to assist the Portuguese police

B. He was doing all this to defend himself because he had somehow been involved in events leading up to Madeleine's reported disappearance

C. He was doing all this on behalf of unnamed others, or

D. A combination of (B) and (C).


I wonder which it was??    

Maybe he was called to Portugal (job) to actually be mistakenly identified. Maybe it was part of the agenda. After all - all participants have to be on scene as it were.

A Double (or three) if you like.

What is so interesting is that statements identifying him can be then changed later without any consequence at all.

I dare say : "I just thought it was Murat" is plausible but would your local Police not raise questions.

jeanmonroe wrote:I can't imagine that the 'window, innocent in 15 seconds, washer' would be too 'impressed' by Operation Strange's re-questioning of RM, can you?

HE 'supposedly' offered RM a 'job' didn't he?

Who knows what RM TOLD 'officers', last week, about that particular 'offer' and WHY he was 'offered' it.

JOB 'offer'  to RM, 'backed' up, i believe, by RM's lawyer, who was witness to 'talks?'

istbc, on that.

Or indeed, what information, RM might have told officers, last week, about ANY er 'meetings' between himself and er, um, y'know, erm 'representatives' of erm, 'interested' parties, at the height of 'investigations'?  (2007)

Based on Brians 'i'll buy what i want and what i want i get' mentality and Murats need/want for money and seeming like of the limelight, it probably went something like this....

Brian: You've been close to whats going on so tell us everything
Murat: I am close to the case yes and know lots, but i'm not going to tell you anything...unless you pay me
Brian: I'll give you €500
Murat: I want $500k
Brian: Ha ha, no. I will pay you a consultancy fee to work with us for the next few weeks at $200 per day, plus you tell us everything you know so far
Murat: This discussion is over.

XTC wrote:

Daryl Dixon wrote:

cockerspaniel wrote: TAKEN FROM ABOVE.....He's an odd fish, but it seems just too significant that 4 of the Tapas 7 identified him as someone they saw 'hanging around 5A' on the night - only to withdraw the statements some time later.

What if (and its just a thought) the tapas 4 DID see him on the night as he was helping the MCc`s in some way, and told the police that they had seen him in all honesty only to be told by K and G to withdraw that statement???

I have had the same thought...

having just read his chat with Martin Brunt it seems he was hoping that Brunt via ( Sarah a third person who may be able to get hold of British phone records ) could assist him in proving telephone calls he made on the night of the 3rd of May 07.

Bit of a strange on to me, as his home phone would be Portuguese and be a Portuguese supplier. Where would a British assistant be of any use unless it was to access a British mobile phone provider as a proof of wherehe was that night?

He said to Brunt that he made two calls from the home phone - one at 8.15pm and one at 11.53pm.


Also if my memory is correct he rang a policeman in the UK and they discussed tracing of mobile phones and calls.

Could it be that SY's analysis of mobile phone movements has flagged up a mobile number ( or numbers ?) of interest to the
investigation. I am bearing in mind that just because it's your mobile it doesn't mean it is you carrying it around PdL or yourself
using it. You might have lent it out to someone and not got it back? Or maybe your chip has ended up in someone elses phone?

Hopefully the interviews will be before Christmas. Could be interesting despite still being a skeptic.

Opinion though.

Hello XTC - I don't know if you have read much of Kikoratton on Twitter :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
He's been quite prolific over late November/December/January - well worth a read -

- just my opinion, though.

Hi missbeetle

Thanks for the info. I have read a few of kikorattans twitters and it is a very elaborate plot that led to the unelaborate
definition of a set of non broken shutters as the reason why Madeleine went missing. All interesting theories though.

The thing about  DCI Redwood ( now retired ) is that one of the few public announcements he made the tracking of
phone movements ( must be mobiles - house phones don't move) almost sound threatening. As if to say - We know
you are out there and we're coming to get you.

As far as Robert Murat and Gerry McCann meeting at the Palmeras Golf Club goes then both RM's and GM's mobiles
should triangulate there between or at certain times on a certain date. Easily checkable if DI Redwood was being
truthful.

The problem is that is only half an investigation so RM's phone shows up but GM's may never have been looked at.

Also there are many on the web who claim to have worked for GCHQ and it would be very interesting to know how they
work when something big occurs? As an example the French Terrorist attacks in Paris. The mobiles would be red hot during
and after the event and I would assume that GCHQ  would keep the info gleaned for years just in case of further threats.

Just as an aside there was a poster on the old 3a's called Stinky Sardine who wrote some very good guides to the Judicial
Process in Portugal re : Arguidos.

I'll have to paraphrase him here but basically once the case was archived arguido status is dropped unless the arguido's wish
to keep that status. He also said that if the case was ever to re-open then all former arguidos automatically become arguidos
again.

This hasn't happened to my knowledge to all the former arguidos.

Can good citizens of PdL now walk the streets unhindered?

If you agree with the unnoficial PJ thoughts - they always could. In fact before during and after.

Allopinion.

missbeetle wrote:

...

Hello XTC - I don't know if you have read much of Kikoratton on Twitter :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
He's been quite prolific over late November/December/January - well worth a read -

- just my opinion, though.

Hi missbeetle, just noticed ur post.

I've tweeted with kiko several times and so I did a grep to get his latest tweets and discovered even more possible forgeries in the Creche Records re O'B ...should be able to get your own daughter's name correct , one would think. I also have tweets going back a lot longer.

I'll get a full copy of the Creche Register. It could well show that the whole week was confused and parents signing for other parent's children.

After all, what's the point of the OC having a Creche Register if any person can come along and sign out anybody else's children?

I think there is a strong possibility that it was a Madelene who was presented at the Creche all week starting on the Monday , hence many would believe the real Madeleine was alive all week.

whatsupdoc wrote:

missbeetle wrote:

...

Hello XTC - I don't know if you have read much of Kikoratton on Twitter :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
He's been quite prolific over late November/December/January - well worth a read -

- just my opinion, though.

Hi missbeetle, just noticed ur post.

I've tweeted with kiko several times and so I did a grep to get his latest tweets and discovered even more possible forgeries in the Creche Records re O'B ...should be able to get your own daughter's name correct, one would think. I also have tweets going back a lot longer.

I'll get a full copy of the Creche Register. It could well show that the whole week was confused and parents signing for other parent's children.

After all, what's the point of the OC having a Creche Register if any person can come along and sign out anybody else's children?

I think there is a strong possibility that it was a Madelene who was presented at the Creche all week starting on the Monday, hence many would believe the real Madeleine was alive all week.

There seem to be basically two theories about the creche records:

1. That they were altered with the co-operation of Mark Warner, after something happened to Madeleine, to give the impression that Madeleine was there all week

2. That there was ANOTHER girl there that week, also called 'Madeleine', though maybe with a different spelling of her name.

sharonl has come up with a third theory - a variation of No. 1 - that the creche records were forged with the help of the nanny in charge of Madeleine's 'Lobster' group - Catriona Baker - but maybe without the knowledge or consent of Mark Warner.

kikoratton's theory of a substitute Madeleine - either pre-planned, or who became available during the week after something happened to Madeleine - does not appear (to me, anyway) to have sufficient evidence to support it.

However, IF (and it is a big 'if') kikoratton's second tweet above is right, that does harmonise with several things that we know or believe.

As I understand it, kikoratton is saying that 12 texts sent by Robert Murat. Michaela Walczuk and Kate McCann on Tuesday 1 May became 12 voicemails deleted by Gerry McCann on Wednesday 2 May.

I would like to see a lot more evidence for this than a 140-character tweet.

But, again, IF, if kikoratton is right, the information in his tweet harmonises with two other major developments in the case that we have been analysing:

1. Who exactly 'phoned/spoke to Murat on Monday 30 April and summoned him back in a rush to Portugal?

and

2. Was the 'Last Photo' a genuine photo taken on Sunday 29 April?    

These two matters, taken together, both suggest that something very significant may have happened between Sunday lunchtime that week - and the 'phone call(s) to Murat the following day

Just a couple of quickies, Tony.  I've followed kiko for quite some time on Twitter and he knows me and I tend to go along with his train of thoughts. I think Madeleine met her demise at the w/e  and Monday seems to have been a very quiet day. What happened on that day?

The Last Pic that I studied  was probably the worst cobbled fake I have seen. I don't know what the original was like. The copy I studied was altered in the foreground and the background. It was really badly done. I didn't look into the Exo data which is usually very telling, others have.

whatsupdoc wrote:The Last Pic that I studied was probably the worst cobbled fake I have seen. I don't know what the original was like. The copy I studied was altered in the foreground and the background. It was really badly done. I didn't look into the Exo data which is usually very telling, others have.

You really need to study carefully the evidence on the two excellent 'Last Photo' threads on this forum.

I suggest that the evidence that this was a genuine photo taken earlier in the week is overwhelming

Tony / admin -  not sure where to ask this question. Textusa has recently put up a post that seems to implicate Neil Berry, another guest at OC that week.

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


I cant seem to find anything on Neil Berry on CMOMM. Have I missed something...has it been discussed ?

Tony Bennett wrote:

whatsupdoc wrote:The Last Pic that I studied was probably the worst cobbled fake I have seen. I don't know what the original was like. The copy I studied was altered in the foreground and the background. It was really badly done. I didn't look into the Exo data which is usually very telling, others have.

You really need to study carefully the evidence on the two excellent 'Last Photo' threads on this forum.

I suggest that the evidence that this was a genuine photo taken earlier in the week is overwhelming

It has been discussed for years , Tony. The picture I studied was not genuine. I don't recall anyone discussing the errors in the background or the mid-area. The rocks in the foreground were copied across. I've used photo manipulation progs for 20 years.

That's my opinion.

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Tony / admin -  not sure where to ask this question. Textusa has recently put up a post that seems to implicate Neil Berry, another guest at OC that week.

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


I cant seem to find anything on Neil Berry on CMOMM. Have I missed something...has it been discussed ?

A mate of mine down in my local, the Fox and Rabbit, reckons Neil Berry was hanging around in the stairwell just waiting for a text message telling him to come to the apartment to partake of some 'swinging activities.'

Dave, my mate, can be very persuasive with his theories on the McCann saga, especially when he is full of ale.

Thanks for that Gaggsy. Textusa is suggesting that Neil Berry's role is more significant than just being another swinger.

I wondered if it had been discussed elsewhere on this forum ?

whatsupdoc wrote:
The Last Pic that I studied  was probably the worst cobbled fake I have seen. I don't know what the original was like. The copy I studied was altered in the foreground and the background. It was really badly done. I didn't look into the Exo data which is usually very telling, others have.

I agree and posted the 5 main spot the differences on the last picture thread between the two pics in my avatar. Another contributor added a 6th. All six point to things that were added to the last pic, highly unlikely or improbably removed from the solo version.

Gaggzy wrote:

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Tony / admin -  not sure where to ask this question. Textusa has recently put up a post that seems to implicate Neil Berry, another guest at OC that week.

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


I cant seem to find anything on Neil Berry on CMOMM. Have I missed something...has it been discussed ?

A mate of mine down in my local, the Fox and Rabbit, reckons Neil Berry was hanging around in the stairwell just waiting for a text message telling him to come to the apartment to partake of some 'swinging activities.'

Dave, my mate, can be very persuasive with his theories on the McCann saga, especially when he is full of ale.

Gaggzy

The question if this tale of swinging is true is- what time did this swinging start?

After tennis - the meal at the Tapas Bar or just before Madeleine's disappearance?

7.30pm might be a bit early for a swing?

If my News of the World antannae is right drink and cocaine accompany swinging.

It's an aid to confidence apparently

p.s. As all the best journalists say - I made my excuses and left.

Too early?

Opinion though.

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

whatsupdoc wrote:The Last Pic that I studied  was probably the worst cobbled fake I have seen. I don't know what the original was like. The copy I studied was altered in the foreground and the background. It was really badly done. I didn't look into the Exo [Exif - T.B.] data which is usually very telling, others have.

I agree and posted the 5 main 'spot the differences' on the last picture thread between the two pics in my avatar. Another contributor added a 6th. All six point to things that were added to the last pic, highly unlikely or improbably removed from the solo version.

This is confusing.

It is accepted that an extractkon of an image of Madeleine alone from the 'Last Photo' was done.

There is nothing wrong about doing that unless the intention is to mislead.

It was quite acceptable IMO for the McCanns to do a minor amount of photoshopping from the 'Last Photo' in order to produce a clear and attractive image of Madeleine.

But...

@ Rogue-a-Tory and whatsupdoc  

...surely after the discussions we have had on this forum of late, you do not still think that the 'Last Photo' itself has been photoshopped?

We covered all that recently on these two threads:

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

...and the overwhelming consensus there was that the forensic evidence produced on those two threads clearly pointed in the direction of it having been a genuine, unaltered, unphotoshopped photo, but probably taken on the Sunday or Monday that week - with just the EXIF data altered.

I hope you'll both be able to say that you agree that the Last Photo is a genuine, unphotoshopped photo  

Sorry Tony, I disagree with the conclusion. If the Last Photo is genuine but dated a few days earlier, then the solo has to be photoshopped. That's an awful lot of effort to go simply to produce a close up of Madeleine, to remove Gerry's elbow & bit of Amelie.

?? Of course it's photoshopped to produce just the picture of MBM.....I don't think that anybody is disputing that. What they're disputing is the TIME/DATE it was taken.
JohnyT

plebgate wrote:I have posted before that I am still wondering why Murat gave an interview to the Daily Express back in the Summer with the headline along the lines of Bring them all back to Portugal.

Nothing else after that as far as I can remember, but I thought at the time and still ask myself why that headline came about.  

Interesting times ahead by the look of things.

Bringing my quote from this topic here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"

Ayniia wrote:
“The reconstruction should cover the critical period just before and after the abduction.”
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
...When reading the part of the files about him and his mother, it says he didn't had much money at the time and his mother was the one paying for his flights between Portugal and the UK. So I wondered, why book a flight at like 3am for the next morning when that would be much more expensive? Who paid for that? What was so urgent? Sudden business matters that can't be talked over the phone? I don't buy that one...

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:Sorry Tony, I disagree with the conclusion. If the Last Photo is genuine but dated a few days earlier, then the solo has to be photoshopped. That's an awful lot of effort to go simply to produce a close up of Madeleine, to remove Gerry's elbow & bit of Amelie.

Sorry for double posting and about an off topic but in the last photo matter we all will have to agree to disagree . It's a covered subject in so many topics, yet everyone it's entitled to it's opinion. True or false, everyone has it's pair of eyes and no matter what experts say, people will believe them or not.
My opinion, Amelie has no arm,period. Discussing the truth or falseness of the picture won't take us anywhere IMHO. Shadows,time of day,weather,flowers blooming, whatever , we'll never agree so we'll have to respect each other's opinions and not try to make people see what they don't. Just MHO.

Ayniia wrote:

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:Sorry Tony, I disagree with the conclusion. If the Last Photo is genuine but dated a few days earlier, then the solo has to be photoshopped. That's an awful lot of effort to go simply to produce a close up of Madeleine, to remove Gerry's elbow & bit of Amelie.

[Snipped] "last photo matter we all will have to agree to disagree"
[Snipped] "True or false, everyone has it's (sic) pair of eyes and no matter what experts say, people will believe them or not.
[Snipped] "My opinion, Amelie has no arm,period. Discussing the truth or falseness of the picture won't take us anywhere IMHO. Shadows,time of day,weather,flowers blooming, whatever , we'll never agree so we'll have to respect each other's opinions and not try to make people see what they don't. Just MHO"

I run my own business, a small part of which involves engraving from photographic images received from customers who request various edits to be made.

However, most of my income over the last few years comes not from my own minor edits for engraving, but from my skills being sought by business colleagues who run their own well-established photographic businesses (i.e. mainly wedding/birth photography), who require digital images to be 'touched up' or fundamentally altered, in one of several commonplace ways. I am thus quite experienced in manipulating images...and often correcting images that have already been (clumsily) altered. Note: I could take the Last Photo and edit out Gerry and Amelie to leave just Madeleine to the same standard as the 'Madeleine on her own' photo and it would take me less than an hour. At least once a week I am given a photo, with lots of people in it, and asked to edit out either all, or just some, of the people... it's a common request, and such editing is not remotely suspicious. For example, I have an informal contract with a local undertakers to edit people out of group photos so as the image of the 'individual' can be C02 lasered onto a granite headstone. It's so easy to do I sometimes don't even bother to charge them. So, anyone that conjours up a 'conspiracy' about the 'Last Photo' being edited to show just MBM simply doesn't have any practical, working knowledge of (easily) manipulating digital images.  

Anyway, getting back to the topic of the Last photo....

My hobbies (now for +30yrs) include astronomy and optics. My previous career was in Business Analysis, (of which I was highly successful, able to semi-retire in my early 40s). Thus I have, (I think) a proven pedigree in:
(a) Objective, impartial, analysis of data, &
(b) A working, practical, knowledge of manipulating photographs.

If my (provable, 'income-earning', experience) counts for anything I would like to state:
- I see no evidence whatsoever of manipulation (i.e. 'Photoshopping') in the last photo. The only possible 'image anomaly' relates to the pixels around the 'hair bead' in Madeleine's hair. However, I must say that the perceived pixel anomalies are within the bounds of what occurs with digital photography and so in no way constitute 'proof' of manipulation.
- That the claim that the photo was taken on 3rd May 2007 at 2.29pm (or as Clarence says...1.29pm) can be positively challenged by simply comparing the sun's angle (as shown by the shadows cast) through a number of (factual, mathematically accurate) astronomical sites
- That the claim that the photo was taken on 3rd May 2007 at 2.29pm (or as Clarence says...1.29pm) can be positively challenged by looking at the available weather data for that date/time.

It is therefore my opinion, both as a professional Business Analyst who was sought after for many years because of my impartiality, rationality and unbiased approach...  and more recently as someone who is sought after on a daily basis by, and who now makes most of their living through, their skill with photo editing software (i.e. The professional and highly technical 'Corel Draw XV', as well as the choice of amateurs, namely the ubiquitous and rather clumsy, 'Photoshop', ), that:

- It is a genuine, unadulterated, photo (albeit I reserve a wee bit of judgement regarding *only* the blurring surrounding the hair-braid)
- It was not taken on the 3rd May 2007 at 14.29 (or 13.29) due to the unarguable evidence of plotting the sun's position, and also due to the weather data for that day/week
- And thus it can be concluded that the only unarguable 'issue' with the 'Last photo' is that the Exif data has been altered in order to support the claim that it was, instead, taken on the afternoon of the 3rd May 2007

I will therefore try and resist getting into a debate with people who see 'false arms', 'false heads', 'ghost dogs' and 'supernatural shadows' as I suspect the people who claim to see those are on this site to intentionally detract from, and undermine, the otherwise excellent analysis and debate that this forum facilitates.

If any poster can, however, present someone with a competent professional (and provable) pedigree in digital photography and photographic manipulation (instead of just a 'having a feeling' owing to their lack of understanding of the commonplace effects of image compression, etc.), then I will happily offer many hours a day swapping data, and professional analysis, with them privately until an agreed and fully informed consensus may be posted. Thus, may I respectfully suggest that, if anyone is serious about seeking justice for Madeleine, that any attempt to claim 'false arms', 'false heads', 'ghost dogs' or 'Wee Willy Winky', etc., is discussed offline and via private message.


In summary:  The Last photo is claimed by Madeleine's parents to have been taken on 3rd May. However, the evidence that it was not taken on that day, at that time, is to me very simple and very clear and can only be successfully challenged by challenging the Laws of Physics. The evidence presented by the Last Photo and the clear manipulation of its Exif data does not need to be obfuscated by spurious, mis-informed, albeit no doubt well intentioned, conjecture.

Knitted,  Would having the original photo make any difference at all to your opinion of the last photo?

I could use more or less any digital photo manipulation software to turn Gerry plus one of the twins plus Madeleine into Madeleine alone.

The only other way I could produce Madeleine alone is by asking Gerry to leave, twin to leave, refocus on Madeleine to blur out the background but keep her sharp.  And then I need Madeleine to be identical to the first pic.  Tough ask for a 4 year old.

I dare say there is, somewhere on the forum, a long-winded debate about whether this is the last photo or not, and whether it was taken on 3rd May or not.

Perhaps there is a relevance.  Given that Madeleine was placed by independent witnesses at high tea in the Tapas area at around 5:30pm, I'm just not seeing why this photo is important.