Re: The SIX PHOTOS that provide the biggest clue to when Madeleine died

by Guest 17.01.20 12:36

@Tony Bennett wrote:
That would mean that the Tennis Balls Photo was TAKEN on Saturday 5 May.

Where on earth does that piece of information stem from? Why is it presumed the photograph was taken on Saturday 5th May 2007?

This particular image could be an original, it's been reproduced so many times, who's to know with any certainty? Not that I necessarily believe it to be an original - at least not taken at the Ocean Club during that fateful week.

Before going any further, it is on public record that Jon Corner was one of the first to arrive in Luz after the alarm was raised, on 4th/5th May 2007 if I remember rightly, apparently armed with a portfolio of Madeleine McCann photographs. It was claimed that he busied himself circulating images to the media.

I will check-out the detail later.

It takes but a few seconds/minutes to electronically 'move' a photograph/image from one place to another. I could take a photograph now, upload it to my laptop and then on the forum within minutes

NB: For the record, I didn't mention EXIF data, I referred only to press agency photographic archives.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.01.20 13:20

Verdi wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
That would mean that the Tennis Balls Photo was TAKEN on Saturday 5 May.

Where on earth does that piece of information stem from? Why is it presumed the photograph was taken on Saturday 5th May 2007?

Er...from your very own words upthread, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], where you wrote this, quote:

"...they ALL use the wording 'created on'. Invariably, if not always, this means the date the photograph was taken".

Whereas I was clearly suggesting upthread that the word 'created on' does NOT necessarily mean the date the photo was taken

by Guest 17.01.20 14:44

The exact words I used, not up-thread but over on the Dr Martin Roberts 'Pyjama Job' were thus..

Vewrdi wrote:As an aside, if you trawl through the various press agency photograph archives, you will note they ALL use the wording 'created on'. Invariably, if not always, this means the date the photograph was taken. It DOES NOT mean, nor imply, that any particular image has been photo-shopped, manipulated, invented - or whatever other verb you prefer to use.

So back to my question .... 'why is it presumed the tennis ball image was taken on 5th May 2007'?

by Guest 17.01.20 15:11

Reverting to the video link posted up-page#83, as I said previously, the video (I haven't the vaguest idea who the author is) is a compilation of comments and analysis posted across social media over the years.

Here's an example courtesy of forum member tigger's blog..

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

tigger wrote:For some reason the photograph was released after it was ‘flipped’. That is: the description given to the police mentions ‘a small brown mark on Left Leg Calf’. When Madeleine faces towards the left, the mark is on the left leg.

The mark?

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

This is a rubbish image. Who's even flipped the flipping image?

Just goes to how how deceptive it can be to play around with photographs - quite damaging I think.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.01.20 16:30

Verdi wrote:The exact words I used, not up-thread but over on the Dr Martin Roberts 'Pyjama Job' were thus..

Verdi wrote:As an aside, if you trawl through the various press agency photograph archives, you will note they ALL use the wording 'created on'. Invariably, if not always, this means the date the photograph was taken. It DOES NOT mean, nor imply, that any particular image has been photo-shopped, manipulated, invented - or whatever other verb you prefer to use.

So back to my question .... 'why is it presumed the tennis ball image was taken on 5th May 2007'?

Again, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the assumption/presumption is based entirely on your very own words, as you've just requoted above.

You have asserted that, quote, "Invariably, if not always, the wording 'created on' means the date the photograph was taken".

Your words, not mine.

As it happens, both the controversial Tennis Balls Photo and the controversial Luis Forra pyjamas photo were marked as 'created' on Saturday 5 Saturday (maybe just another of those 'coincidences'.

According to your logic and assertion above, that must mean that you think that both photographs were actually taken on Saturday 5 May.

Have I misunderstood what you say? I think not.

-----

Whereas I still think it is at least possible that the McCanns took that photograph themselves. In their holiday apartment

by **Tony Bennett** 17.01.20 17:32

Alex Woolfall's name has cropped up recently on this thread.

Here are a few excerpts from one of the Alex Woolfall threads which may once again be of some interest:

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

Times, October 6, 2007

Alex Woolfall on Madeleine’s photos:

The McCanns had photographs of Madeleine on their digital camera, which Mr Woolfall began transferring to a laptop computer. "I said to Kate, 'Let's try to identify pictures where her face is visible'. Downloading the images was a very difficult process for them. It was upsetting.

[SNIPPED...]

Mr Woolfall transmitted the photographs to the Press Association in London, from where they were distributed to the media. The portfolio included the now famous image of Madeleine wearing a hat on a tennis court.

Now, once again: WHY wasn't the "Last Picture" there?

sharonl wrote on 08.09.13 11:38

This thread raises a good many questions not only about 'The Last Photo' but also about the other photos supposedly taken of Madeleine that week.

The link on HideHo's site to the article about Alex Woolfall certainly makes interesting reading.

One obvious question, for starters, is what was Alex Woolfall doing sorting through the McCanns' camera's memory card?

Why weren't the Portuguese police looking at it?

Another question is how did this camera get into the hands of a Hampshire Police Officer who examined it on Tuesday 8 May, apparently in his own home.

Who took it there, presumably by plane, and on whose authority?

Were any images deleted from the memory stick? I think they were. Who deleted them and why?

Also, we are talking about 'the McCanns' camera' as if they only had one camera. Did they perhaps have more than one?

Another question: why are there so few photos of her that week?

Plus, who actually took the 'tennis balls' photo?

Aiyoyo wrote:

Official police work not authorised and not carried out within authorised venue can become legal contention as procedures are breached.

Elements of tampering and/or lack of record can become an issue in Court case.
If no record is kept of downloaded materials he would have to rely heavily on memory if the authenticity of the last photo becomes a contentious issue.

Not only that, the digital details set and/or captured on the camera would be lost to his recollection years later.

So yeah, if proven that Madeleine died earlier than the 3rd, Alex Woolfall may face questioning.

Tigger wrote:

From the topic 'Video Analysis of the tennis photo' by Garyp.

Have been doing an analysis of different photos for a while now, this is the first posting and video I have done on them so be gentle.

The tennis court photo - I have read many things about photoshopping of this picture so thought I would look into it further.

It first appeared in the media unless anyone knows different on the morning of Monday 7th May.

This means it must have been in the hands of the editor Sunday 6th May for the layout to be arranged.

6th May was Mothers’ Day and the church service

Would Gerry have been emailing this picture to the editor that day? Possibly...

This photo was not used in PDL in the first days after M disappeared.

7th May was a busy day for this photo. It was also used in the email 'chain letter' sent out by Pat Perkins, family friend of Kate’s mother, where did she get it so quickly? And she doesn’t really look like someone who would be able to cut the picture down from the original. Don’t know, maybe she uses photoshop in her spare time.

[Edited to add: We now know that her husband is Mr Tony Rickwood, a photoshopping expert who produced many images of women drowning in quicksand for a website, ‘Deviant Art’]

unquote

So Woolfall must have missed this one on Monday? It already went out and imo it was never on the camera.

by Guest 18.01.20 0:04

Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:The exact words I used, not up-thread but over on the Dr Martin Roberts 'Pyjama Job' were thus..

Verdi wrote:As an aside, if you trawl through the various press agency photograph archives, you will note they ALL use the wording 'created on'. Invariably, if not always, this means the date the photograph was taken. It DOES NOT mean, nor imply, that any particular image has been photo-shopped, manipulated, invented - or whatever other verb you prefer to use.

So back to my question .... 'why is it presumed the tennis ball image was taken on 5th May 2007'?

Again, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], the assumption/presumption is based entirely on your very own words, as you've just requoted above.

You have asserted that, quote, "Invariably, if not always, the wording 'created on' means the date the photograph was taken".

Your words, not mine.

As it happens, both the controversial Tennis Balls Photo and the controversial Luis Forra pyjamas photo were marked as 'created' on Saturday 5 Saturday (maybe just another of those 'coincidences'.

According to your logic and assertion above, that must mean that you think that both photographs were actually taken on Saturday 5 May.

Have I misunderstood what you say? I think not.

-----

Whereas I still think it is at least possible that the McCanns took that photograph themselves. In their holiday apartment

Yes, I believe you have misunderstood me - and totally confused me in the process.

@Tony Bennett wrote:
That would mean that the Tennis Balls Photo was TAKEN on Saturday 5 May.

The fact I pointed out that press agency photograph archives use the wording 'created on' equates to presuming the tennis ball image was taken on 5th May 2007? You've lost me.

To simplify, forget anything I've said before, only understand I'm trying to ascertain where this information stems from - as I've said more than once. Where does the suggestion that the tennis ball image was taken/created on Saturday 5th May 2007 originate?

I have never made such a claim.

by **Tony Bennett** 18.01.20 8:46

Verdi wrote:

@Tony Bennett wrote:
That would mean that the Tennis Balls Photo was TAKEN on Saturday 5 May.

The fact I pointed out that press agency photograph archives use the wording 'created on' equates to presuming the tennis ball image was taken on 5th May 2007? You've lost me.

To simplify, forget anything I've said before, only understand I'm trying to ascertain where this information stems from - as I've said more than once. Where does the suggestion that the tennis ball image was taken/created on Saturday 5th May 2007 originate?

I have never made such a claim.

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

I think part of the problem may be that we are swapping between two threads at the moment, as were are discussing TWO photographs, BOTH said to have been 'created' on Saturday 5 May 2007:

(1) The Tennis Balls Photo, and
(2) The Luis Forra pyjamas photo.

In relation to the Tennis Balls Photo, I posted this image, which shows (in the bottom right of picture) the date of 'creation' of the image as 05-05-2007 i.e. Saturday 5 May:

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

Above: A graphic produced by Lizzy Hideho Taylor in 2009. It is available in a slightly clearer image elsewhere on the internet on a couple of YouTube videos, where the puzzling date of 'creation' on 5 May 2007 is also discussed

-----

I then applied your dictum to this photograph, i.e.,

As an aside, if you trawl through the various press agency photograph archives, you will note they ALL use the wording 'created on'. Invariably, if not always, this means the date the photograph was taken. It DOES NOT mean, nor imply, that any particular image has been photo-shopped, manipulated, invented - or whatever other verb you prefer to use.

Now, if you are right, i.e. that CREATED = TAKEN, then clearly the Tennis Balls photo could NOT have been 'TAKEN' on any of the various dates stated for it having been taken by the McCanns and some of their Tapas 7 friends.

Whereas I maintain that CREATED does NOT necessarily mean the date it was TAKEN, but what it says, i.e. 'CREATED' e.g. by photoshopping, other editing, 're-creating' it somehow, taking a photo of a photo etc.

In this connection I think you might agree with me that it may be very significant that AFAIK the Tennis Balls Photo was first, let us say 'produced' for public consumption by, according to two sources on 7 & 9 May, Philomena McCann in Ullapool. It appears to have been sent on Sunday 6 May (see discussion upthread) to Kate McCann's Liverpool school friend Pat Perkins, who promptly emailed it far and wide the following morning (7 May).

But we NOW know that Philomena McCann was living with her husband, Tony Rickwood, a professional photoshopper of 'quicksand fetish' notoriety.

All of this strengthens IMO the case that the Tennis Balls Photo is a photoshopped creation, quite possibly a composite of two or three separate images. In support of this is PeterMac's careful analysis that the image was NOT taken on Kate McCann's Canon Sureshot/Powershot 620 as claimed in Kate McCann's work 'madeleine'.

As an aside I find it of interest that the Luis Forra pyjamas photo which we are discussing elsewhere was also created on Saturday 5 May, and my argument of course applies to that as well.

To give one straightforward possibility: he (Forra) could very well have been given a digital image by Kate McCann of her photo of those pyjamas, then edited it, and pushed it out as 'created' by the Luis Forra press agency.

Is not this similar to some of the McCanns' other images of Madeleine now being accredited to Paul Grover? (who incidentally photographed me outside the High Court in February 2013).

.

by Guest 18.01.20 12:00

Aha! So this is what it's all about - now we're getting somewhere..

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

The worrying part of this is the wording, I quote .... 'Is this the EXIF data for the tennis ball pic'

A question, not a statement of fact nor even a hint of authenticity. For this to have any true value, I would expect to see something on the lines of .... 'this is the EXIF data for the tennis ball pic'

Excuse my cynicism, over the years I've seen so many instances of urban myth originating through some misguided, or mischievous, source.

I can't read the EXIF data presented but in the interest of accuracy, I'll hunt around for a readable graphic when I have a spare moment. I hope it's worth the effort, it's not looking too promising at present.

by **crusader** 18.01.20 14:42

I don't really understand all the technical stuff about the photo's, so I'll just say this. Kate Mccann could have sent the tennis ball's photo ( and any other for that matter ) to her parent's soon after taking them and they in turn could have done what they wanted with them, ie sent them to whoever they wanted.

In the PJ files, there is a statement from Aurelio Guerreiro a friend of Pat Perkins who owned a bar in Villamoura. Pat Perkins called him and asked him to help the Mccann's and gave him a contact number for the mccann's.

He phoned the police in Portugal to establish they were aware of missing child. He also rang the Mccann's twice 00-30 & 1am, he
also gave them his phone number.

He said Pat Perkins was staying in Liverpool with Kate's parent's when she rang him in Villamoura.

He didn't hear anymore from Pat Perkins until 7th May when she sent him an email of Madeleine.

by Guest 19.01.20 21:39

I've spent some time looking for a readable version of Lizzy 'Hi-De-Ho' Taylor's graphic - to no avail.

However, what I did come across is of interest to this discussion. The date claimed to be when the tennis ball image was 'created' [sic], the 5th May 2007, would appear to have been instigated by a past CMOMM forum member, canada12.

The member posted a link to a Bruno Press which is no longer available - at least not to my laptop. At the time it must have been viewable as Hi-De-Ho produced another graphic showing McCann family handout photographs, including the tennis ball image said to have been created on 5th May 2007.

Without access to Bruno Press I can't comment.

Now the worrying thing here is canada12 talked a good job, implying a good knowledge of photograpics but little else. For a start, s/he said if we had access to the original photograph or a first print-off so to speak, s/he/we would be able to produce the EXIF data from said photograph.

This is the same member who wasted hours of forum time and space trying to convince the world that one photograph of Madeleine McCann showed flowers on and around her neck - if memory serves me well.

It was clear canada12 knew nothing about photography despite claims to the contrary.

My view .... the origin of the image is dubious but without a clue to work on, there is no way of knowing it's true value. As it stands it's just another red herring.

With the likes of canada12 as a leading light, I'm inclined to abandon the subject.

by Guest 20.01.20 0:17

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

by Guest 20.01.20 0:57

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

by Guest 20.01.20 12:38

Rachel Oldfield's Rogatory Interview

[The morning of Friday 4th May 2007]

'I remember having, sort of being on the phone a little bit to the BBC I think that morning, erm and then sort of various phone calls, I talked to John CORNER who's a friend of Gerry and Kate's, erm cos the BBC wanted a picture of Madeleine, erm and he had some photos that he was going to be able to send them, erm and then and I think maybe about ten-ish'
...................

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

Friday 4th May 2007

By this time our friend Jon Corner, a creative director in media production in Liverpool, was circulating photographs and video footage of Madeleine to the police, Interpol and broadcasting and newspaper news desks.

Jon Corner had opened up the file transfer protocol he’d set up on 4 May to circulate Madeleine’s image to family, friends and other supporters. No, I didn’t know what one of those was, either: basically, it provided access via a password to a repository for photographs and other material, allowing people to share their resources. Helpers could post their material on a dedicated server via the FTP and use that supplied by others to create flyers, posters and so on. The press already had the password, which gave them access to pictures and video footage.

by LaRabbita0 30.04.20 0:55

To me it looks like her hair is shorter in the last photograph. She has her head inclined downwards towards her chin in this photo, in order to trap the tennis balls securely. This would make her hair length seem longer than the just below collar bone length of the previous photos. I would say the last photo was taken at a different time from that holiday.

by NeeNee 07.09.20 18:54

Regarding the photo where Madeleine is wearing some make-up: She obviously is wearing some beads, and possibly just playing dress up. I have a 3 year old grandson, and I have seen that same expression if he is admiring himself in a mirror when we have fixed his hair, or whatever, and he's feeling pretty special. I think it's possible that the make-up picture is just a time when she was dressing up and nothing more. It's not quite a smirk in the picture of her; but I do recognize that expression of a little one feeling special, pretty, or handsome.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.09.20 14:17

NeeNee wrote:Regarding the photo where Madeleine is wearing some make-up: She obviously is wearing some beads, and possibly just playing dress up. I have a 3 year old grandson, and I have seen that same expression if he is admiring himself in a mirror when we have fixed his hair, or whatever, and he's feeling pretty special. I think it's possible that the make-up picture is just a time when she was dressing up and nothing more. It's not quite a smirk in the picture of her; but I do recognize that expression of a little one feeling special, pretty, or handsome.

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

Against your view we have these factors:

1 Adult applied hair bead

2 Adult applied necklace

3 Adult applied blue eye shadow

4 Looks like both lipstick and eye-liner - applied by an adult

5 Clearly miserable looking face

6 Parents did not tell the true story when the Corner video was released

7 Strong evidence this photo was taken in Portugal - not admitted by parents

8 Possibly taken the same day as the Last Photo, you know, the one that was said to have been taken Thursday, not Sunday:
A same hair length
B beads in hair in both photos
C wearing pink smock/dress in both photos

by **Silentscope** 10.09.20 14:44

On your point number 5 Tony, it gives me the impression that she is attempting to produce a “look” for the Camera / Photographer that she is unused to / not experienced enough to produce?

by **Tony Bennett** 10.09.20 16:32

Silentscope wrote:On your point number 5 Tony, it gives me the impression that she is attempting to produce a “look” for the Camera / Photographer that she is unused to / not experienced enough to produce?

Yes. Agreed. She has been told by someone to hold up her head.

The cameraman seems to be positioned low down, looking up at her almost.

I do NOT think this photo was taken by one of the parents. When they spoke about it back in 2009, neither of them said: ''Oh yes, I remember taking it. What a fun day that was!"

Remember that it was Jon Corner who was in possession of that photo, in order to release it on his little 2-minute video.

So Jon Corner could have taken it. But in my opinion it was more likely to have been taken by someone else: not the parents, and not Jon Corner.

That throws a potentially sinister light onto this most controversial of Maddie photos

by **Silentscope** 10.09.20 17:32

Was one of the Relatives not a Photographer?

Often discussed regarding Photo Shopping images?

by Guest 10.09.20 18:34

What Kate did say was that Madeleine had been playing with the dressing up box or words to that effect. I think the inference being that as the dressing up box was at home therefore, that's where the photo was taken. But the background wall colour is very typical of that found in Portugal. I have expressed my own thoughts on this picture in another thread that were largely dismissed by Verdi who is fairly sure it is photoshopped. I just reacted to it on face value.

by **Silentscope** 14.09.20 12:23

Interesting Video on YouTube reference Photoshop analysis.

by Guest 14.09.20 13:43

All this sort of nonsense has been debunked here on CMOMM over the past years time and time again.

The 'armchair detective' is a danger to justice in the name of Madeleine McCann. He might mean well but that's where his input begins and ends.

I have no time for people who try to capitalize on the back of a missing child.

bignono

If you scour the internet and/or YouTube, as you are doing, you will find hundreds of examples of this genre of unhelpful, self promotional, nonsense.

by Lance De Boils 14.09.20 18:45

from Verdi on p1, (I haven't got further yet,)

There is enough compelling evidence to suggest Madeleine met her fate sometime between Sunday 29th and Monday 30th April 2007. Sadly Madeleine was gone and the abduction plan was hatched long before the panic button was hit at approximately 10:00pm on Thursday 3rd May 2007.

It may be one of few Verdi posts I agree with, but this part of one I certainly do.

by **crusader** 03.07.22 12:52

Do we know what time the tennis balls photo was taken?
I ask because if the time of the pool photo was an hour out, according to Gerry, the photo stamp was 1-29 but Gerry said it was 2-29 when the photo was taken. Were the other photo's the wrong time as well.

PJ files said playground photo was 17-15 Wednesday 2nd May, is this wrong as well.

_______________________________________

I've taken the liberty of moving your post ^^^ to this thread, which is not only more informative but also more recent.

PeterMac's free e-book also has chapters dedicated to the tennis ball photograph enigma, for anyone interested..

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

Verdi

by **PeterMac** 04.07.22 10:28

Best estimate so far:
Playground photos, Wendy house. SATURDAY 28th, shortly after arrival and settling in, ca. 1700
Pool Photo = LAST PHOTO, SUNDAY 29th, between 1330 and 1430. SolarZenith was 1329

(Interesting that Kates description of the Pool photo as the Last photo is probably correct.)

Weather chart for Weds 2 and Thursday 3

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

Grey bars at the top are cloud cover.

by **crusader** 04.07.22 13:06

I agree the playground photo was taken Saturday 28th May, in the PJ files it is referred to as a Family handout photo dated 2nd May.

The PJ must have seen the date stamp on the photo to put it into the files and label it as taken on 2nd May.

When was this photo first shown?

by Guest 04.07.22 13:44

The tennis ball image (I'm careful not to say photograph) is an enigma in it's own right .... it's origin!

Personally, I believe only two photographs published are relevant and/or true - the playground pictures and the poolside picture but back to the tennis balls.

Did the PJ use the image in relation to their investigation, was the image given to the PJ to assist their investigation? The poolside photograph certainly wasn't. that didn't materialize until much later in the month of May 2007 - following Gerry McCann's fleeting visit to the UK, when he returned with excess baggage in the form of a government media monitoring director - Clarence Mitchell. Affectionately known as Mitch the monkey ....

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

I digress, now where was I - oh yes tennis balls

This was circulated by family friend from Liverpool, partly anonymous and partly one Pat Perkins, as you will note on 9th May 2007 only six days after Madeleine's reported disappearance..

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

Pat Perkins complete e-mail about Madeleine's 'abduction', 07 May 2007
The e-mail:

Please forward to as many people as you know

On behalf of Kate and Gerry McCann and all the family, please help us find Madeleine.

Madeleine, age 3, was abducted from her bed in the family holiday apartment, Praia De Luz, Algarve, Portugal on Thursday, 3rd May.

Police and all of Portugal are trying to find her. The Portuguese people, holiday makers and ex pats have been a great support to the family and continue their efforts.

You, too can help. Please circulate this plea to publicise Madeleine's photo and ask for information, no matter how small to be passed on to the authorities.

Whether you are in the UK, Portugal, Europe or beyond, please forward to all your family, friends,colleagues and business associates. Someone out there will have some information that will lead to Maddy's return.

The internet can be a powerful tool in finding Maddy, who is so loved and missed by us all.

Let's use it positively.

Please pray for Madeleine and all the family at this devastating time.

We need your help. We know you won't let Maddy down.

God bless,

Pat Perkins
(Family friend)

Pat Perkins
XXX (removed)

XXX (removed)
XXX (removed)

Mob: XXX (removed)
Tel: XXX (removed)
Fax: XXX (removed)

email attachment

[Thanks to Nigel Moore and pamalam of gerrymccannsblog]

by Guest 04.07.22 13:54

crusader wrote:The PJ must have seen the date stamp on the photo to put it into the files and label it as taken on 2nd May.

Would you be so kind as to provide the link from the PJ files.

I'm finding it increasingly difficult to reference information as interest in the case dwindles. The most useful websites seem to have become mingled with google.

Ta!

rolleyes

by **crusader** 04.07.22 14:18

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

Page 588

According to Kate's book, she and Madeleine went swimming in the tapas pool after unpacking, so between
4&5 before the welcome meeting.

So the photo must have been taken during the welcome meeting.