Re: Was the "Last Photo" taken on the FIRST Day?

by **Tony Bennett** 12.07.15 21:39

Nuala wrote:If MM died earlier in the week, they had time to achieve more than the considerable amount that was achieved in 90 minutes in the Stuart Lubbock case, they had days to do it.

Really? You've lost me there, Nuala. What more, precisely, could they have done? (if they did, that is)

by Nuala 12.07.15 21:42

@ Tony Bennett

So you agree that the dates and times supplied for:

(a) the playground photo (Gerry twirling Madeleine) (Wednesday 2 May) and

(b) Madeleine outside the Wendy house (Wednesday 2 May at 5.15pm precisely)

were supplied to the PJ (or to D C Martin) by the McCann Team and not inserted by Albym?

If I may, I'll answer that, and will try not to confuse the issue as I clearly did last time.

Those photos are in the PJ files so were given to the PJ on the discs supplied by GM and MW. The camera given to DC Martin was the one belonging to the Foster family. The Foster family photos aren't in the PJ files so we can exclude those. The only photos from the McCanns are those supplied direct to the PJ on discs by GM and MW, so that's where the photos you're referring to came from.

According to this website:

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

The playground photo was also released by Sky News, who reported it was taken the day before MM was "abducted", so I think it's fairly safe to say that date came from TM.

Would you agree with me that if TM released the playground photo to Sky News saying it was taken on 2nd May, the date of that photo on the disc given to the PJ would also be 2nd May?

Otherwise there would have been a discrepancy that the PJ would have noticed straight away.

Would that be a fair statement?

by Nuala 12.07.15 22:00

@ Tony Bennett

Really? You've lost me there, Nuala. What more, precisely, could they have done? (if they did, that is)

I'm sorry, I couldn't have made myself clear.

The point I was making was that in the Stuart Lubbock case, you said and indeed listed, the considerable amount done to transform the crime scene in 90 minutes.

If MM died earlier in the week, say 30th April, the McCanns had three whole days to plan and execute a credible "abduction" and yet the shutters weren't jemmied, there was no sign of a break in, the twins were in cots without sheets, a couple of timelines had been scribbled on MM's sticker book covers, the bed where MM was supposedly abducted from was laid out in a way that obviously a child hadn't been abducted from it.

I would have expected in three days that at least the shutters would would show some signs of damage and the bed arranged properly. Some signs of a break in, removing some of their possessions to make it look like someone had broken in and stolen some stuff and then also abducted MM?

Instead, with three days to plan an "abduction" they did nothing credible at all.

by Mo 12.07.15 22:04

I'm just wondering if the date and time stamp weren't set on the Mccanns camera as with the Foster family camera - maybe the PJ relied on the Mccanns telling them which days the pictures were taken?

by Nuala 12.07.15 22:24

@ Tony Bennett

I've just realised I'm bombarding you with posts.

Apologies for that, I didn't mean to.
I'm not picking on you, it's just there's so much to discuss and I got a bit carried away smilie

by Guest 12.07.15 22:43

Nuala wrote:The point I was making was that in the Stuart Lubbock case, you said and indeed listed, the considerable amount done to transform the crime scene in 90 minutes.

Interesting.

Do you follow Tony?

by **Tony Bennett** 12.07.15 23:41

Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

Really? You've lost me there, Nuala. What more, precisely, could they have done? (if they did, that is)

I'm sorry, I couldn't have made myself clear.

No, you did make yourself clear, but I was asking you specifically, given that you didn't think the McCanns did very well with an alleged abduction hoax, what MORE you think they could have done (i.e. to convince people that Madeleine had been abducted). It was a genuine question. To put it another way, Nuala, if you had been in the same situation, and needed to promote a hoax abduction, what more could you have done than the McCanns did (if that is what they did)

The point I was making was that in the Stuart Lubbock case, you said and indeed listed, the considerable amount done to transform the crime scene in 90 minutes.

If MM died earlier in the week, say 30th April, the McCanns had three whole days to plan and execute a credible "abduction" and yet the shutters weren't jemmied, there was no sign of a break in, the twins were in cots without sheets, a couple of timelines had been scribbled on MM's sticker book covers, the bed where MM was supposedly abducted from was laid out in a way that obviously a child hadn't been abducted from it.

I would have expected in three days that at least the shutters would would show some signs of damage and the bed arranged properly. Some signs of a break in, removing some of their possessions to make it look like someone had broken in and stolen some stuff and then also abducted MM?

Instead, with three days to plan an "abduction" they did nothing credible at all.

Right, you say that, but the fact remains that, whatever e.g. the government, the security services and the mass media may have done to assist the McCanns one way or another since 3 May, the abduction account as told by the McCanns and the Tapas 7 has lasted for over 8 years and continues to lodge deep in the minds of much of the British public.

Let me just list what the McCanns set before us all (or had available to them), to help us to understand that an abduction had taken place:

1. An explanation for the 'checking' regime, which they say was maintained all week
2. An account (by Mrs Fenn) of a child crying. Mrs Fenn insisted it was a child who had reached its third birthday, you could tell by the voice (1)
3. The 'Last Photo' - proof she was alive at 2.29pm on 3 May
4. Philip Edmonds' photo of his boys playing on 3 May with Madeleine in the background
5. The 'high tea' at 5.30pm, with Cat Baker and Charlotte Pennington in attendance
6. David Payne seeing all the children in the McCanns' apartment looking happy and 'angelic'
7. Kate remembering she'd removed the hair bead from Madeleine's hair when she bather her that night (the hair bead in the Last Photo)
8. Matt Oldfield's check at 9pm - all OK
9. Gerry McCann's check at 9.05pm to 9.10pm - all OK
10. Matt Oldfield's check at 9.30pm - all OK, but, but, door open 50 degrees, hmmm, maybe a bit more light coming in, hmmm, could be the window was open, hmmm, light coming in 'from the front', hmmm again and oh dear, didn't actually see Madeleine, hmmm, hmmm - abductor might have come in and gone between 9.10pm and 9.30pm
11. Madeleine gone - alarm raised
The Crime Scene
12. Shutters partly raised
13. Window partly raised - Kate's fingerprints on window-frame
14. 'The shutters and windows were closed all week' - to keep out the heat
15. Curtains partly open - 'whooshed by the wind'
16. Madeleine's bed sheet turned back which suggests she had been removed
17. Pink blanket
18. Cuddle Cat, left by the abductor just by the pillow 'where it normal is when Maddie is sleeping' [Truth of the Lie]
19. Jane Tanner with ready-made abductor based on Wojcek Krokowski
20. Nuno Lourenco lined up to speak to police Saturday morning and describe bloke looking like Wojeck Krokowski who tried to kidnap his child.

Twenty elements - and more that I haven't mentioned - quite enough to keep the story going for 8 years and occupy Operation Grange for half that time pursuing the remit of investigating 'the' abduction.

Just supposing for a moment that this was not an abduction but that there was a planned abduction hoax, surely all the above elements were a pretty fair attempt at a 'cover story', weren't they?

by Guest 13.07.15 0:05

Nuala wrote:@ Tony Bennett

I've just realised I'm bombarding you with posts.

Apologies for that, I didn't mean to.
I'm not picking on you, it's just there's so much to discuss and I got a bit carried away

Nuala, were you/are you actively involved with this case in an official capacity? A simple yes or no would suffice if you feel inclined to reply. My reason for asking is that you speak with some authority and I don't want to waste my time researching different aspects of the case if you can supply the answers.

For example, on the subject of the photographs, I've spent time looking at the subject of the footage analyzed by the Hampshire constabulary but I always end with the same conclusion. I haven't time at the moment to go into much detail but if you compare the witness statement of Stuart William Martin of Hampshire constabulary with the detail of the Fosters assistance, the two together do not accord with your claim. Correct me if I'm wrong, the Fosters had video footage available for examination, I don't recall any mention of digital camera stills. The Hampshire police were asked to visit the Fosters home to analyze the footage as they didn't have the expertise, if your view is correct - why was digital camera equipment sent to Stuart Martin rather than analyzed by the officer that was detailed to visit the fosters home? Also, I believe the digital camera equipment was sent by Leicester constabulary to Stuart Martin - why would the Fosters who live in Hampshire send their camera equipment to Leicester police only for them to send back to Hampshire for analysis?

Something doesn't add up here. Hope this makes sense, I'm rushing.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.07.15 0:14

Verdi wrote:
Nuala, were you/are you actively involved with this case in an official capacity? A simple yes or no would suffice if you feel inclined to reply. My reason for asking is that you speak with some authority and I don't want to waste my time researching different aspects of the case if you can supply the answers.

I had (and still have) no idea who Nuala is, having never, if memory serves, having come across her previously, but again IIRC someone on a forum or on FB somewhere said recently that Nuala was originally a very forceful 'pro-McCann' - but somewhere along the line changed to being a McCann-doubter.

I hope I have got that right, sincere apologies if I haven't

by TheTruthWillOut 13.07.15 0:43

I don't think it really matters who Nuala is no more than who I am, with all due respect to the likes of Tony and PeterMac.

There is a Nuala that regularly comments on textUSA's blog. If it is the same person I'm sure she'll? confirm.

@Verdi

I'm surprised and intrigued about what you say about the Fosters and Hampshire Police. It seems pretty simple and straight forward once you make yourself through the "treacle" that is the PJ files.

1, Copy of email sent by LP to HP [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] LP spoke to Mr Foster that morning (8th May) and LP requested local HP to go to his house after 15:15 PM 8th May.

2, The local PC Barham goes to the house, reviews and collects the Sony camcorder and Olympus camera and delivers them to DC Martin's own home at 21:00 PM the same evening.

3, at 8:30 AM May 9th DC Martin delivers the Sony camcorder to the Hampshire imaging unit, Netley. He doesn't examine that himself and I don't know of anything else in the files about the imaging unit or Netley?

The rest we've been through.

Not for the first time in this thread I'm confused Verdi!

by Guest 13.07.15 7:37

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Nuala, were you/are you actively involved with this case in an official capacity? A simple yes or no would suffice if you feel inclined to reply. My reason for asking is that you speak with some authority and I don't want to waste my time researching different aspects of the case if you can supply the answers.
I had (and still have) no idea who Nuala is, having never, if memory serves, having come across her previously, but again IIRC someone on a forum or on FB somewhere said recently that Nuala was originally a very forceful 'pro-McCann' - but somewhere along the line changed to being a McCann-doubter.

I hope I have got that right, sincere apologies if I haven't

See jeanmonroe's posts on page 56 of the Steve Marsden thread.

[Nuala is not the other Nuala who used to support the McCanns - from the Wayback thread:

Nuala @ jeanmonroe

So that's NOT you, the 'Nuala', who 'began as their (McCanns') supporter,

No, that's not me.

who left that 'comment' then?

No idea, and neither do I care. - Mod.]

by **PeterMac** 13.07.15 9:17

Whoever it is would do well to read the Last Photo thread, where most of the questions have been answered.

by plebgate 13.07.15 9:25

PeterMac wrote:Whoever it is would do well to read the Last Photo thread, where most of the questions have been answered.

What a very sensible idea.

[ Here is the main, recent, 'Last Photo' thread:

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

There are, however, 1,054 posts on it to wade through.

To summarise this 106-page thread, the balance of opinion was that there was very good evidence that the 'Last Photo' was not photoshopped at all, but taken on Sunday 29 April 2007 with the metadata subsequently changed to read '2.29pm, 3rd May 2007' - Mod. ]

by **PeterMac** 13.07.15 10:54

plebgate wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Whoever it is would do well to read the Last Photo thread, where most of the questions have been answered.
What a very sensible idea.
[ Here is the main, recent, 'Last Photo' thread:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
There are, however, 1,054 posts on it to wade through.

To summarise this 106-page thread, the balance of opinion was that there was very good evidence that the 'Last Photo' was not photoshopped at all, but taken on Sunday 29 April 2007 with the metadata subsequently changed to read '2.29pm, 3rd May 2007' - Mod. ]

Quite.
And we believe we can on the balance of probabilities identify the person who did it, the date they did it, the person who then carried it back to PdL and handed it to Mitchell, who released it to the AFP with all the Mitchell stuff about "look at the time" . . . meaning Look at the date.

If (and only if) that is correct he becomes part of a conspiracy, way beyond being just a very stupid pink spokes-thing.

by Richard IV 13.07.15 12:41

Ladyinred wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Nuala, were you/are you actively involved with this case in an official capacity? A simple yes or no would suffice if you feel inclined to reply. My reason for asking is that you speak with some authority and I don't want to waste my time researching different aspects of the case if you can supply the answers.
I had (and still have) no idea who Nuala is, having never, if memory serves, having come across her previously, but again IIRC someone on a forum or on FB somewhere said recently that Nuala was originally a very forceful 'pro-McCann' - but somewhere along the line changed to being a McCann-doubter.

I hope I have got that right, sincere apologies if I haven't
See jeanmonroe's posts on page 56 of the Steve Marsden thread.

[Nuala is not the other Nuala who used to support the McCanns - from the Wayback thread:

Nuala @ jeanmonroe

So that's NOT you, the 'Nuala', who 'began as their (McCanns') supporter,

No, that's not me.

who left that 'comment' then?

No idea, and neither do I care. - Mod.]

And of course it goes without saying you are not the Nuala that KM phoned at 8,56am on Friday 4th May 2007.

"8.50.27 am Gerry calls Angela Morado, UK consulate (4.47 minutes)

8.51.42 am Kate calls ... (0 seconds) SMS

8.52.41 am Kate calls Jon Corner (73 seconds)

8.56.15 am Kate calls Nuala (47 seconds)

8.57.17 am Jill mob calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS

9.01.55 am ... calls Gerry (1.46 minutes)

9.04.16 am ... calls Gerry (1.28 minutes)

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

by Guest 13.07.15 13:19

Richard IV wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Nuala, were you/are you actively involved with this case in an official capacity? A simple yes or no would suffice if you feel inclined to reply. My reason for asking is that you speak with some authority and I don't want to waste my time researching different aspects of the case if you can supply the answers.
I had (and still have) no idea who Nuala is, having never, if memory serves, having come across her previously, but again IIRC someone on a forum or on FB somewhere said recently that Nuala was originally a very forceful 'pro-McCann' - but somewhere along the line changed to being a McCann-doubter.

I hope I have got that right, sincere apologies if I haven't
See jeanmonroe's posts on page 56 of the Steve Marsden thread.

[Nuala is not the other Nuala who used to support the McCanns - from the Wayback thread:

Nuala @ jeanmonroe

So that's NOT you, the 'Nuala', who 'began as their (McCanns') supporter,

No, that's not me.

who left that 'comment' then?

No idea, and neither do I care. - Mod.]

And of course it goes without saying you are not the Nuala that KM phoned at 8,56am on Friday 4th May 2007.

"8.50.27 am Gerry calls Angela Morado, UK consulate (4.47 minutes)

8.51.42 am Kate calls ... (0 seconds) SMS

8.52.41 am Kate calls Jon Corner (73 seconds)

8.56.15 am Kate calls Nuala (47 seconds)

8.57.17 am Jill mob calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS

9.01.55 am ... calls Gerry (1.46 minutes)

9.04.16 am ... calls Gerry (1.28 minutes)

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

... Popcorn and isis will be available during the interval. ppcorn

by Guest 13.07.15 13:32

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I don't think it really matters who Nuala is no more than who I am, with all due respect to the likes of Tony and PeterMac.

There is a Nuala that regularly comments on textUSA's blog. If it is the same person I'm sure she'll? confirm.

@Verdi

I'm surprised and intrigued about what you say about the Fosters and Hampshire Police. It seems pretty simple and straight forward once you make yourself through the "treacle" that is the PJ files.

1, Copy of email sent by LP to HP [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] LP spoke to Mr Foster that morning (8th May) and LP requested local HP to go to his house after 15:15 PM 8th May.

2, The local PC Barham goes to the house, reviews and collects the Sony camcorder and Olympus camera and delivers them to DC Martin's own home at 21:00 PM the same evening.

3, at 8:30 AM May 9th DC Martin delivers the Sony camcorder to the Hampshire imaging unit, Netley. He doesn't examine that himself and I don't know of anything else in the files about the imaging unit or Netley?

The rest we've been through.

Not for the first time in this thread I'm confused Verdi!

You're confused? Apart from the link (which I've read many times), I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Yes, I'm sure 'we've' been through all this before but that 'we' excludes me, furthermore I'm not the person that reintroduced the topic.

If someone could guide me to past discussion on the subject to clear my foggy brain I would be most grateful. So far, outside of this forum, I've only read conflicting opinions with no explanation to justify their claims.

by Nuala 13.07.15 18:21

@ Verdi - No I'm not actively involved with this case in any official capacity, nor have I ever been, so I'm afraid I'm unable to help you
with your question.

@ Tony Bennett
IIRC someone on a forum or on FB somewhere said recently that Nuala was originally a very forceful 'pro-McCann' - but somewhere
along the line changed to being a McCann-doubter.

Ladyinred and a Mod have kindly clarified that for you.

@ TheTruthWillOut - I'm happy to confirm that yes, I'm the same Nuala who posts comments on Textusa's blog.

@ Richard IV
And of course it goes without saying you are not the Nuala that KM phoned at 8,56am on Friday 4th May 2007.

One would think that it should go without saying, but apparently not, so no, I'm not the Nuala that KM phoned at 8,56am on Friday 4th May 2007.

by TheTruthWillOut 13.07.15 18:43

Verdi wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:I don't think it really matters who Nuala is no more than who I am, with all due respect to the likes of Tony and PeterMac.

There is a Nuala that regularly comments on textUSA's blog. If it is the same person I'm sure she'll? confirm.

@Verdi

I'm surprised and intrigued about what you say about the Fosters and Hampshire Police. It seems pretty simple and straight forward once you make yourself through the "treacle" that is the PJ files.

1, Copy of email sent by LP to HP [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] LP spoke to Mr Foster that morning (8th May) and LP requested local HP to go to his house after 15:15 PM 8th May.

2, The local PC Barham goes to the house, reviews and collects the Sony camcorder and Olympus camera and delivers them to DC Martin's own home at 21:00 PM the same evening.

3, at 8:30 AM May 9th DC Martin delivers the Sony camcorder to the Hampshire imaging unit, Netley. He doesn't examine that himself and I don't know of anything else in the files about the imaging unit or Netley?

The rest we've been through.

Not for the first time in this thread I'm confused Verdi!
You're confused? Apart from the link (which I've read many times), I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Yes, I'm sure 'we've' been through all this before but that 'we' excludes me, furthermore I'm not the person that reintroduced the topic.

If someone could guide me to past discussion on the subject to clear my foggy brain I would be most grateful. So far, outside of this forum, I've only read conflicting opinions with no explanation to justify their claims.

I'm even more confused with this response, Verdi!

You said in your previous post that what DC Martin says doesn't jive with what the Fosters said. I genuinely don't understand that. I'm all ears if you could give your take on this.

I honestly wasn't being rude with my last post.

by Nuala 13.07.15 18:48

@ Tony Bennett

Just so that we don't lose the point of this as can happen with wordy replies, we're talking here about whether there was an
abduction scenario that the participants had three days to plan. So the assumption is that something happened to MM on 30th April
and an abduction scenario was planned to cover up what happened.

1. An explanation for the 'checking' regime, which they say was maintained all week
Written twice on the same night. I would expect that after 3 days a consolidated version would be the one presented to the
GNR/PJ.

2. An account (by Mrs Fenn) of a child crying. Mrs Fenn insisted it was a child who had reached its third birthday, you could tell by the
voice (1)
That account came in August, not on the night of 3rd May, so had no influence on the crime scene or scenario presented to the
authorities and besides, if it was planned shouldn't Mrs Fenn have spoken immediately that night?

3. The 'Last Photo' - proof she was alive at 2.29pm on 3 May
Not released until three weeks after MM disappeared, so had no influence on the crime scene and besides, if it was planned shouldn't
that photo have had its date changed ready for 3rd May? A three minute job, that's all it takes to change the date.

I could go on, but the points you raise up to number 10 have no impact on the crime scene. As for point 11:

11. Madeleine gone - alarm raised
That would be expected for any scenario, planned or unplanned.

So to your crime scene points:

12. Shutters partly raised
Partly, shouldn't they be totally?

13. Window partly raised - Kate's fingerprints on window-frame
Partly opened (windows opened sideways), shouldn't it be totally opened with lock forced?

14. 'The shutters and windows were closed all week' - to keep out the heat
In what way does that contribute to an abduction scenario?

15. Curtains partly open - 'whooshed by the wind'
And then have them tucked between wall and bed? Shouldn't they be loose so they could whoosh? And anyway, KM only mentions the
whooshing much later, not on the night of 3rd May.

16. Madeleine's bed sheet turned back which suggests she had been removed
Sorry, but if anyone can see a child removed from that bed I can't, and neither could the PJ.

17. Pink blanket
What does it contribute to the abduction crime scene? First it was said Tannerman with the blanket then it wasn't. Shouldn't the
blanket story be better decided if everything was planned?

Again, I could go on.
.
There are things I would expect to see if they had three days to plan a credible abduction scenario, such as signs of a break in. They
had three days and they couldn't even manage that. With three days planning I would expect photos of the Tapas dinners showing
everything was normal and all was fine up until the fateful 3rd. With three days planning I would expect GM to get his story right
about which door he used to enter the apartment on night of 3rd.

On 4th May GM said that he "entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked". That's the front door, the patio door
doesn't lock with a key. So he reads, ratifies and signs his statement, in which he says he entered the apartment at 21.05 via the
front door.

On 10th May he changes his story and says he "followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move
[slide] it, that being the way in which he entered" and then reads, ratifies and signs this changed statement.

That looked good didn't it, for the father of the missing child to be changing his statement like that. With three days planning I would
expect him not to make such fundamental mistake.

Just supposing for a moment that this was not an abduction but that there was a planned abduction hoax, surely all the above
elements were a pretty fair attempt at a 'cover story', weren't they?

A considerable amount of effort has been made since 3rd May 2007 to promote the abduction story in the minds of the public, but
there was nothing that was done to create a credible abduction scene for the night of 3rd May that showed any planning beyond a
few hours.

by Nuala 13.07.15 19:02

@ PeterMac

And we believe we can on the balance of probabilities identify the person who did it, the date they did it, the person who then carried it back to PdL and handed it to Mitchell, who released it to the AFP with all the Mitchell stuff about "look at the time" . . . meaning Look at the date.

The Last Photo didn't need carrying to the UK and back to PdL to change the date in the meta data. It takes three minutes not three weeks. All they had to do was copy the photo to a PC and right click on the photo.

And if none of the T9 knew how to change the date, and those at the OC too busy manipulating the booking sheets didn't have time, then wasn't CEOP in PdL soon after MM disappeared? And all sorts of other Establishment help? Are you suggesting no-one at CEOP knew how to change the date on a photo?

I agree the photo was taken to the UK and then back to PdL but it was for another reason, not to change the date, that could easily be done in PdL in a matter of minutes.

by lj 13.07.15 19:45

As PM, repeatedly, and Jill, on the first page, have pointed out there is a lot already discussed about this.

Maybe Nuala, since she is new, can take some time and read it.
In case it is too bothersome to do a search I got you some links (sorry I did not feel like putting them all separately in the link option, no doubt you know how to copy and paste) :

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

Surprise I see the links work like this too ...

by Inspector Clouseau 13.07.15 22:07

Nuala -
I'm not sure changing the data and time of a photo is quite as easy as you think. When you upload a photo to a computer it will have (at least) 2 dates and times. In Windows it will show the date and time the photo was uploaded, and if you go into a photo editing program you should be able to see the date and time the photo was taken.

You said it's as simple as right-click on the photo in Windows, that will certainly show you the create / modify and access dates and times, but I can't find an easy way to edit them. So how exactly in windows do you change this ?

Then the photo itself (the jpg file), will have stored in its metadata, the creation time of when the photo was taken, again I can't find an easy way in Windows to edit this. I know a Photoshop type programs will allow you to alter the metadata but that are there any programs in a default Windows environment that allows you to do this.

If it does take three minutes then I'm happy to be educated on how this is done.

Finally, if I was altering the date on a photo that might be scrutinised, I'd probably want to do some research to ensure my changes wouldn't be discovered. Photos contain a lot of metadata, some of which won't be visible to a simple editing program, so I would want to check that none of the hidden fields contained something of importance...

Inspector C.

by Guest 13.07.15 23:00

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Verdi wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:I don't think it really matters who Nuala is no more than who I am, with all due respect to the likes of Tony and PeterMac.

There is a Nuala that regularly comments on textUSA's blog. If it is the same person I'm sure she'll? confirm.

@Verdi

I'm surprised and intrigued about what you say about the Fosters and Hampshire Police. It seems pretty simple and straight forward once you make yourself through the "treacle" that is the PJ files.

1, Copy of email sent by LP to HP [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] LP spoke to Mr Foster that morning (8th May) and LP requested local HP to go to his house after 15:15 PM 8th May.

2, The local PC Barham goes to the house, reviews and collects the Sony camcorder and Olympus camera and delivers them to DC Martin's own home at 21:00 PM the same evening.

3, at 8:30 AM May 9th DC Martin delivers the Sony camcorder to the Hampshire imaging unit, Netley. He doesn't examine that himself and I don't know of anything else in the files about the imaging unit or Netley?

The rest we've been through.

Not for the first time in this thread I'm confused Verdi!
You're confused? Apart from the link (which I've read many times), I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Yes, I'm sure 'we've' been through all this before but that 'we' excludes me, furthermore I'm not the person that reintroduced the topic.

If someone could guide me to past discussion on the subject to clear my foggy brain I would be most grateful. So far, outside of this forum, I've only read conflicting opinions with no explanation to justify their claims.

I'm even more confused with this response, Verdi!

You said in your previous post that what DC Martin says doesn't jive with what the Fosters said. I genuinely don't understand that. I'm all ears if you could give your take on this.

I honestly wasn't being rude with my last post.

Rest assured I didn't think for a second that you were being rude, I just couldn't understand your point.

On numerous occasions I've been caught up in con-flab about this issue, leaving aside the insults and accusations of being a conspiraloon (is that a real word?), I have only been told (as in talked down too) that the photographic footage examined by a specialist from the Hampshire Constabulary was only that provided by the Foster family but I've yet to read anything that proves that assertion - it appears to me but an assumption.

If I may briefly try to explain. What I think to be the pertinent points contained in the link you posted up I have highlighted..

Email from Leicester police to Hampshire Constabulary dated 8th May 2007

Would you kindly permit an officer to visit Mrs F*****?.
She has recently been on holiday to the MW complex and is in possession of video footage taken by her husband. It is understood that the footage is currently contained on their home computer. The allocated officer will need to review the footage and all footage of the complex should be downloaded onto a suitable storage disc. Mr F**** has indicated that it probably only consists of a thirty second pan of the playground area/pool area/Tapas bar. Mr and Mrs F are not technically competent to download the data. Please statement accordingly re exhibit continuity.

I have spoken to Mr F this morning and he has been advised that local officers will make contact with his wife.

If possible please send a copy to me for initial viewing in the Incident Room.

No mention of anything but video footage on the Fosters home computer to be transfered to an appropriate disc for onward transmission. At this point I can't see the need for the disc to be forwarded to an technical expert for analysis when all that was required was for the visiting police officer to transfer the video footage from the Fosters computer to a disc to be later examined by Leicester police.

Moving on to Stuart Martin's witness statement, there is absolutely no confirmation or even indication that the camera equipment handed over to him was the property of the Foster family. Not that I expect it to be mentioned in his statement but as I said, the detail of the equipment given over to him for analysis does not in any way indicate that it was connected to the Fosters. According to the email above, Mr Foster thought there would only be a thirty second pan on their video that might be of assistance to the investigation - again this hardly accords with the detail of the items analyzed by Stuart Martin. Also, neither Mr Foster or his wife were being investigated by the police so why would it be necessary to analyze their photographic equipment and/or shots, surely all the police would require is the actual photographs and/or video to view?

In my view this begs the question - who did this camera equipment belong to?

Looking at the bigger picture maybe this is not particularly important but this forum has been under a lot of fire, as some non-members insist categorically that the photographic equipment and imagery analyzed by Stuart Martin was the property of the Fosters alone, I would like to see some proof of that assertion. Not only for my own peace of mind but also to avert yet another instance of supposition being passed off as fact. It seems to me to be a case of if you say it often enough people will believe it.

Hope I've made myself clear.

by Nuala 13.07.15 23:03

@ Inspector Clouseau

The information about changing the date and time on a photo I got from the Internet and I tried it on one of my photos and it worked. I can't remember the web page where I read the information, but there is a link to it in one of my posts.

It was a recent page though, and I'm more than willing to conceded that back in 2007 things might have been a little more complicated and am happy to change the estimated timing for changing the date from three minutes to three hours, or even three days.

But it doesn't take three weeks, and neither does it require the photo to be shipped back to the UK.

After MM's disappearance there were plenty of people in PdL helping the McCanns who would have been able to change that date.

It's interesting you mentioning Photoshop because that's included in the full Exif details:

Software Adobe Photoshop CS Windows

by Guest 13.07.15 23:32

@ Nuala

@ Verdi - No I'm not actively involved with this case in any official capacity, nor have I ever been, so I'm afraid I'm unable to help you
with your question.

Thank you for replying Nuala.

by Nuala 13.07.15 23:34

@ lj

Thank you for the links.

I might be new to this forum but I'm not new to this case. Indeed anyone who follows Textusa's blog, as I have, will have a very detailed and informed background to it.

I appreciate you trying to help though and posting the links for me smilie

by Nuala 13.07.15 23:44

@ Verdi

You're welcome smilie

I've read your posts and understand the point you're making about the Foster video/camera/photo situation but it's not something I've really looked at so can't shed any light.

It's probably fair to assume that if the Fosters had video footage they also had photos and perhaps some correspondence is missing from the files, I don't know so just speculating about that.

by TheTruthWillOut 14.07.15 0:09

@Verdi.

The email seems to have been written by someone that also isn't too savvy when it comes to computers with the request of having Hampshire email video footage (even just 10 minutes if edited first). Today's email uploads are generally limited to just 25MB and probably 10MB in 2007. Even an edited 10 minutes of MiniDV footage would be ~2GB!

I hear what you're saying Verdi but even by my standards, that is some cynicism!

Maybe Mr Foster only mentioned the video footage when he talked to LP. When PC Barham went to collect the footage he may have seen the camera or the PDL pictures on the computer and asked to take them too? Or Mrs Foster offered the camera? That's just one scenario though. Granted, it is odd that the email does only mention video footage and DC Martin drops the camcorder off at the imaging unit but there is nothing in the files I've seen that the PJ received a copy of that
footage like they did with the pictures.

Also I would think the Fosters have checked out the PJ files like others and would have protested if anything was wrong?

by Guest 14.07.15 1:13

TheTruthWillOut wrote:@Verdi.

The email seems to have been written by someone that also isn't too savvy when it comes to computers with the request of having Hampshire email video footage (even just 10 minutes if edited first). Today's email uploads are generally limited to just 25MB and probably 10MB in 2007. Even an edited 10 minutes of MiniDV footage would be ~2GB!

I hear what you're saying Verdi but even by my standards, that is some cynicism!

Maybe Mr Foster only mentioned the video footage when he talked to LP. When PC Barham went to collect the footage he may have seen the camera or the PDL pictures on the computer and asked to take them too? Or Mrs Foster offered the camera? That's just one scenario though. Granted, it is odd that the email does only mention video footage and DC Martin drops the camcorder off at the imaging unit but there is nothing in the files I've seen that the PJ received a copy of that
footage like they did with the pictures.

Also I would think the Fosters have checked out the PJ files like others and would have protested if anything was wrong?

Oh yes, I was born cynical but I don't think my cynicism is the issue here - unless it's leeched through from the sub-conscious big grin

.

I'm not meaning to be unreasonably contrary but this just doesn't make sense to me, no matter how I try I cannot see the issue as clear cut. It really would be appreciated if someone could direct me to the thread on this forum where it's been discussed in-depth, I'd like to read how others interpret the detail - if for no other reason than to clear my muddled head. As I say, so far I've never been offered an explanation to prove me wrong, only continuous declarations that I am wrong, if you get my drift

Limited time 'n all that, not very good at navigating the forum so please don't tell me to use the search facility. dance