Jim Gamble slams trolls for harming tot's siblings – calls for police action

Verdi wrote:

NickE wrote:I've also asked him why CEOP became involved from the very beginning but has he refused to answer and it's a bit pathetic because I know and we all knows he has the answer to that simple question.

Snipped from PJ files..


Letter from Dr Amaral to Detective Chief Superintendent Robert Hall - 7th May 2007

2. In the spirit of Police to Police Cooperation we request the presence of a British Criminal Analyst who may be able to assist the enquiry.

Also the collaboration of the UK's "Child Exploitation Online Protection" may be useful if they wish to send one of their officers to provide assistance to the investigation,

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14767p125-documented-evidence#403329

Personally, I think anyone in the public eye with a reputation to uphold, are crazy to engage in twittering.  I don't understand why they do it.

aquila wrote:It must have been a few years ago when I had a bit of a bee in my bonnet on CMoMM about Jimmy two flags and his new business venture as the overlord of an associate based 'global' company which depicted him spearheading child protection with the oddest photograph of himself standing on a podium between the Union flag and the US flag, microphone to his mouth.  . . .
Gamble took the said photograph and removed the flags to show himself still standing on the same podium, microphone to his mouth with a blacked out background.
. . .
I never pretend to be clever. I found it completely bizarre.

PeterMac wrote:There is a history of altering photos in this case.

We remember the "Curious case of the missing elbow and the missing sibling . . ."

where the "Last Photo" was clearly tampered with before being published across the world.

PeterMac wrote:We concluded that someone had tampered with the original image to remove the elbow and the sibling.

We also concluded that the original photo could not possibly have been taken at lunchtime on Thursday 3rd May 2007, as the world was being told, but on the available evidence can only have been taken during the luncheon interval on Sunday 29th April 2007.

aquilaAre wrote:Hello AlexBG,

I've been reading over your posts today. You've been a member of the forum for almost five years.

As you haven't posted much I forgot that you introduced yourself as a law student. I was reminded of how long people are on the leading forum and how the years pass so quickly.

How did it all go? Did you take up law? Did you choose a discipline?

aquila wrote:Hello AlexBG,

I've been reading over your posts today. You've been a member of the forum for almost five years.

As you haven't posted much I forgot that you introduced yourself as a law student. I was reminded of how long people are on the leading forum and how the years pass so quickly.

How did it all go? Did you take up law? Did you choose a discipline?

PeterMac wrote:We concluded that someone had tampered with the original image to remove the elbow and the sibling.

We also concluded that the original photo could not possibly have been taken at lunchtime on Thursday 3rd May 2007, as the world was being told, but on the available evidence can only have been taken during the luncheon interval on Sunday 29th April 2007.
From that we deduced that someone had altered the EXIF Metadata attached to the image, and
from that we deduced that there must have been a motive for so doing.

We then looked into the proven skills and abilities of various people closely associated with the family, and
discovered people with the necessary knowledge.
From there having established Means and Motive, we looked for the third of the necessary Trinity in criminal law - Opportunity -
And found it.

A simple series of logical steps.
So far no one has been able to argue convincingly, based on proper evidence, that this is flawed.  Many have tried.
But as always a single piece of credible refutational evidence will be enough to alter this analysis.

PeterMac wrote:[AlexBG.
Well done. It's a long slog.  I know.  I did both my LLB and MA part time, night school and "distance", and a year to do the Thesis.]

The weather was a crucial element in coming to the conclusion that it was taken on Sunday 29th.  The details can be found in the various Chapters with the long Appendices at   http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/
I went through Met office reports, Airport records, satellite images from more than one source, a diary written by a retired RAF Navigator, for whom understanding weather was crucial, then very importantly photos posted by normal members
of the public on FLICKR and other sites, and of course the statements by the Tapas Group themselves.

They are all mutually reinforcing - (With the exception of course of GM who says the weather was hot - but he is the only person in the known Universe who says so)

So far as I have been able to find out, once an image has been cropped and 'messed around with' the Metadata is lost.  

We looked (= some professionals looked) at whether Madeleine had been photoshopped INTO the big photo, but it seemed to be agreed that the photo itself was more or less OK.  There was a lot of discussion about that, and various versions were prepared with Madeleine taken out.   Some of those are floating round, and from time to time people post them on fora as original.