Further Analysis of the Last Photo

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

Looks a bit like bruising to me than sunburn. The sort of marks left if someone was holding / pinning you down.

Didnt KM have similar marks on her wrists... Oh yes when you lash out in anger you hit things with your wrists dont you Kate.

Interesting observation by worried mum.

Has the 'I've been wearing gloves and bare arms in the sun' remark been discussed?

She's holding the balls right handed in the picture, (try imagining or actually picking up half a dozen balls and bringing them to your chest for support) but people can always break the rules I suppose.

Trying to work out if there are any others. The double skid marks would be the other sign of a possible reverse image if another shot of the tennis courts with that mark can be found - if indeed this is the Ocean club.

What strikes me most in all of Maddie's pictures/video clips is that she appears to be a happy bubbly lively normal little girl.

There is one which I found a little sad she looks quite young, and Mr asks her if she thinks Amelie likes chocolate or sweets or something (twins look around 8 months perhaps) and she replied 'uh huh' a positive response, and Mr tells her to say 'yes daddy.' Just seemed a bit harsh to demand this of her. Was it the 'uh huh' he didn't like or that she did not add 'daddy' giving him, perhaps in his mind - respect.  She's just so little in this video clip.

1soapy wrote:Interesting observation by worried mum.

Has the 'I've been wearing gloves and bare arms in the sun' remark been discussed?

She's holding the balls right handed in the picture, (try imagining or actually picking up half a dozen balls and bringing them to your chest for support) but people can always break the rules I suppose.

Trying to work out if there are any others. The double skid marks would be the other sign of a possible reverse image if another shot of the tennis courts with that mark can be found - if indeed this is the Ocean club.

It's wrong to build too much on small bits of information I would say. 

Let's assume the tanning effects have been described accurately...toddlers often doggie paddle when they swim. That would cause a big discrepancy between hands and upper arms in terms of exposure to sun if they spent a lot of time in the pool.

Her left leg is dodgy, where's the knee?

Ladyinred wrote:Her left leg is dodgy, where's the knee?

There is no knee. It's one of the red flags that a very long time ago indicated to me that this picture is a composite of elements. Head. Hat. Body. Arms. Legs. Feet. Tennis balls. Hands.

Okeydokey "
Let's assume the tanning effects have been described accurately...toddlers often doggie paddle when they swim. That would cause a big discrepancy between hands and upper arms in terms of exposure to sun if they spent a lot of time in the pool. "

  Bot Okey, this was a 3 year old and a very fair 3 year old at that...as a daughter of doctors I would be amazed to find that she was not wearing a waterproof factor 50+  [ you can now get 70 not sure if you could in 07 ].

 I am not a doctor, but I know from public awareness on t v and other media that young children should not tan at all...it is skin damage and does not bode well for later life.
 I have seen Maddie in a sun protection body suit on a beach, evidence that care was taken with her skin in the sun. The Mcs are scientists.... they surely did not believe, that at this latitude , close to north Africa, cloudy weather meant a person could not burn?

It goes without saying that I include the twins in the sun care issue.

 I have never been able to come up with any explanation for this difference on colour of the hand and arm, it is always this neat straight line at the wrist which puzzles me , along with the extreme difference in skin colour.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
This photo was purported to be from PDL but she is far too young on it. I can see a mark on her left calf (inside) - would this be the distinguishing mark?

Also I guess that this pic was from the holiday with the Paynes which makes his comments about her all the more sickening IMO.

She's looking quite bloated in this photo.

This has been discussed before. It's clearly an earlier photo when she still had a bit of baby podge.

These are the only photos claimed to have been taken at PDL.

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

1soapy wrote:Interesting observation by worried mum.

Has the 'I've been wearing gloves and bare arms in the sun' remark been discussed?

She's holding the balls right handed in the picture, (try imagining or actually picking up half a dozen balls and bringing them to your chest for support) but people can always break the rules I suppose.

Trying to work out if there are any others. The double skid marks would be the other sign of a possible reverse image if another shot of the tennis courts with that mark can be found - if indeed this is the Ocean club.

If you look at the kitchen photo you'll see that her left hand in that looks very 'knuckled' , her arm changes colour at the elbow there. Not the only weird thing inthe photo.
Here too her left hand has adult looking knuckles. However, the tennisphoto isalmost always given as looking right. She should be facing left, as it appeared in one of the Dutch papers early on. Then the brown mark on her  left leg is where it should be.
That mark is the only distinguishing feature mentioned in the early PJ description. Iirc.
Imo the eye/coloboma would certainly have been in the passport since, like the small mark on her leg, it would have been present from birth.

It would be a great idea if  we could find two women and a child of 4 to pose and be photographed  exactly like the kitchen photo. My feeling is tha Kate's right elbow  had nowhere to go, she would be partlyreflected in the worktop andI don't think she's left handed.

Will check out the kitchen pic Tigger. It's a dillema to know how far to look into these picture anomolies. They are secondary to the primary case, but if several photos are shown, beyond reasonable doubt to have been manipulated without just cause, it will clearly add weight to a legal case. A police team would not have time, but thanks to forums like this and the free time and skills offered by folk, such luxuries are possible. Hopefully this forum will be acknowledged by authority as contributing to the truth and set a precedent for future cases that such public forums can be of great use.

Hi Okeydokey.

Not sure I understand how I am reading too much into the pic.

Worriedmum made an interesting point (with a valid reason for her thoughts), to enquire as to whether the picture may be inverted. She then used the limited number of possible things in the picture in the absence of buildings etc. (namely the wording on the tennis balls) to ask if the lettering could be inverted on closer examination to ascertain if her idea of inverted image could be correct. I think the reason she was following this lead was to suggest how cloning parts of body in other pictures could have made up a false image. The mark on her right leg in this pic (if on the left leg in others) would show inversion.

I then made 2 other observations. The left handed/right handed way of picking up and holding things would be a notable error in an inverted image (though I conceded that this rule could be broken, but my children are consistent in this when they pick things up like this) and the skid marks is the other obvious pointer in an inverted image. Couldn't see anything more (without scraping the barrel or being overly picky, like the way her feet point or her mouth or head goes up or to one side) than the mark on her leg that could be a good indication of an inverted image in the absence of other features because the picture (interestingly) only shows the tennis court.

If these (what you may think as trivial) matters are shown to be manipulations, (along with perhaps other images) then it certainly adds greater suspicion, if such a thing were possible, to what is already presented in sites like this.

Regarding the colour difference between her right arm and hand which seems to have a very manufactured straight line differentiating them, (that was what I meant by the glove point), it almost looks like a Frankenstein cut and paste job with the inability or lack of patience to colour change the hand/fingers. I think that this observation was perhaps the inspiration for worriedmums comments. I notice that Russian Doll also concurs with this strange anomaly and points out the weakness in your point about swimming, though I do take your point that we should think outside the box and look for alternatives possibilities - a point I have made myself recently.

I'm sure its been looked at before, but iirc all the kids were given 'identity bracelets' when they registered for the creche.

Were these the permanent type to last a few days until they were cut off? Was there a 'preferred' wrist?

Could one of these account for the straight line on the wrist where the sun had been shaded?

1soapy wrote:

Worriedmum made an interesting point (with a valid reason for her thoughts), to enquire as to whether the picture may be inverted. She then used the limited number of possible things in the picture in the absence of buildings etc. (namely the wording on the tennis balls) to ask if the lettering could be inverted on closer examination to ascertain if her idea of inverted image could be correct. I think the reason she was following this lead was to suggest how cloning parts of body in other pictures could have made up a false image. The mark on her right leg in this pic (if on the left leg in others) would show inversion.

1soapy, thank you for your detailed points. The OT , 'the Last Photo',is the reason I raised these questions,not 'cloning of other pictures'. The point is, if the arm we are seeing in the tennis photo is actually the arm we are seeing on the last photo, then there appears to be an anomaly. The tennis photo shows an arm with marks on it. The pool photo, taken AFTER it , doesn't. I have seen the tennis photo reproduced facing the other way-which is correct?

worriedmum wrote:This is clearer
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This photo makes me feel so uneasy. This is not a happy child, nor a healthy one imo. She has a bald patch on the right side of her forehead, her hands are discoloured, her smile is forced and as always she looks unkempt.

Versailles wrote:

worriedmum wrote:This is clearer
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This photo makes me feel so uneasy. This is not a happy child, nor a healthy one imo. She has a bald patch on the right side of her forehead, her hands are discoloured, her smile is forced and as always she looks unkempt.

  
Until I see her medical records.
I think she was suffering from an illness, perhaps a life-threatening and was suffering from pain. 
The parents "helped" her get free from the pain and "move on to the other side". 
Everything was planned and their doctor friends were understanding about their decision.
They used this "help to die" to stage a kidnapping. 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I respect your opinions  but all I see is a happy little 3 - 4 year old gathering tennis balls. I actually think she looks normal and happy in this. Just a different interpretation

The pool photo is false.  The item that has been added, is the pair of sunshades on Gerry!  There is another picture of Gerry with the sunshades, he is not wearing them, but has them hanging from the neck of his t-shirt.  The pool is reflected in the sunshades, horizontally. 

Some-one has then copied the sunshades from the t-shirt picture and put them on his face, in the pool picture.  That is why the reflections are wrong.  Also, look at the ears, the sunshades do not sit on the ears, they are too high.

Why should Gerry need to photo-shop sunshades on to his face, that is the question to ask.  Why must no-one see his eyes?  I suspect that he has a bruised eye, if this is the case, then who did this?

Okeydokey wrote:

1soapy wrote:Interesting observation by worried mum.

Has the 'I've been wearing gloves and bare arms in the sun' remark been discussed?

She's holding the balls right handed in the picture, (try imagining or actually picking up half a dozen balls and bringing them to your chest for support) but people can always break the rules I suppose.

Trying to work out if there are any others. The double skid marks would be the other sign of a possible reverse image if another shot of the tennis courts with that mark can be found - if indeed this is the Ocean club.

It's wrong to build too much on small bits of information I would say. 

Let's assume the tanning effects have been described accurately...toddlers often doggie paddle when they swim. That would cause a big discrepancy between hands and upper arms in terms of exposure to sun if they spent a lot of time in the pool.

When you swim 'doggie paddle', surely your hands are out of the water more than your arms which are submerged? So while your shoulders might get burned, your arms wouldn't, but your hands might?

I have never seen a 3 year old with arms/hands like her right one  - they just do not have knuckles like that.
That really does look like an adults hand and arm to me.

Do not want to start another photoshopping thread but it really does look odd to me - and I spend a lot of time with 3/4 year olds.

Shibboleth wrote:The pool photo is false.  The item that has been added, is the pair of sunshades on Gerry!  There is another picture of Gerry with the sunshades, he is not wearing them, but has them hanging from the neck of his t-shirt.  The pool is reflected in the sunshades, horizontally. 

Some-one has then copied the sunshades from the t-shirt picture and put them on his face, in the pool picture.  That is why the reflections are wrong.  Also, look at the ears, the sunshades do not sit on the ears, they are too high.

Why should Gerry need to photo-shop sunshades on to his face, that is the question to ask.  Why must no-one see his eyes?  I suspect that he has a bruised eye, if this is the case, then who did this?

Agree - and it must tie in somehow with the comment about purchasing sun glasses.  I also think a key objective of the last photo was to ensure everyone knew that Gerry was at the pool that afternoon - rather than where he actually was..

GM had to have sunglasses photo shopped on this photo. Why?
The original photo must have perhaps showed him sitting there with a black eye (perhaps).
In using this photo and publicising it -they decided they had to cover the black eye in case it created suspicion.

I think this case is all about protecting GM.

If someone can post a close up of Madeleine in a high resolution version of the last photo I would be grateful as there is something about it that I'm not sure I've seen discussed elsewhere.

On Madeleine's little pigtail to the left as we look, there has quite clearly been (poor) photoshopping of the area just below the elastic band.

Now, I know that K makes a big deal in her book about M's last bath and specifically talks about removing something from M's hair - does anyone have the exact passage? Also, there was talk early on in the investigation of PJ looking for, or having found, some sort of hair bobble which was regarded as significant.

In short - it looks to me like whatever M had in her hair the day of the last photo has been "whoosh clunked" from the picture. This may be to support the idea that the photo was taken on the day K&G claim, or it may be because of something much more sinister.

Thoughts?

ajb wrote:If someone can post a close up of Madeleine in a high resolution version of the last photo I would be grateful as there is something about it that I'm not sure I've seen discussed elsewhere.

On Madeleine's little pigtail to the left as we look, there has quite clearly been (poor) photoshopping of the area just below the elastic band.

Now, I know that K makes a big deal in her book about M's last bath and specifically talks about removing something from M's hair - does anyone have the exact passage? Also, there was talk early on in the investigation of PJ looking for, or having found, some sort of hair bobble which was regarded as significant.

In short - it looks to me like whatever M had in her hair the day of the last photo has been "whoosh clunked" from the picture. This may be to support the idea that the photo was taken on the day K&G claim, or it may be because of something much more sinister.

Thoughts?

Hi res photo is on page one of this thread:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Hope this helps.

---

Sorry! The pictures don't load on my phone! Just a white box with a red x. 

So does it look like that part of the pic has been doctored?

ajb wrote:If someone can post a close up of Madeleine in a high resolution version of the last photo I would be grateful as there is something about it that I'm not sure I've seen discussed elsewhere.

On Madeleine's little pigtail to the left as we look, there has quite clearly been (poor) photoshopping of the area just below the elastic band.

Now, I know that K makes a big deal in her book about M's last bath and specifically talks about removing something from M's hair - does anyone have the exact passage? Also, there was talk early on in the investigation of PJ looking for, or having found, some sort of hair bobble which was regarded as significant.

In short - it looks to me like whatever M had in her hair the day of the last photo has been "whoosh clunked" from the picture. This may be to support the idea that the photo was taken on the day K&G claim, or it may be because of something much more sinister.

Thoughts?

Is it a small plait above the hairbobble so doesn't look quite like the rest of her hair?

Everything about this photo is weird. Not least those horrible sandals. I would be surprised if she would have been allowed to wear them as they are not suitable or safe footwear for running around on a tennis-court. I am sure that staff would have recommended clothing and footwear for all the kids' club activities. 
And why did it take so long to release the photo, if it had been taken when it was supposed to have been taken? Why the delay in publishing up-to-date photos?

And according to Kate Gerry 'loves this photo.' 

Ye Gods. This couple are just - truly gruesome.

canada12 wrote:

ajb wrote:If someone can post a close up of Madeleine in a high resolution version of the last photo I would be grateful as there is something about it that I'm not sure I've seen discussed elsewhere.

On Madeleine's little pigtail to the left as we look, there has quite clearly been (poor) photoshopping of the area just below the elastic band.

Now, I know that K makes a big deal in her book about M's last bath and specifically talks about removing something from M's hair - does anyone have the exact passage? Also, there was talk early on in the investigation of PJ looking for, or having found, some sort of hair bobble which was regarded as significant.

In short - it looks to me like whatever M had in her hair the day of the last photo has been "whoosh clunked" from the picture. This may be to support the idea that the photo was taken on the day K&G claim, or it may be because of something much more sinister.

Thoughts?

Hi res photo is on page one of this thread:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Hope this helps.

Gery looks like he is having fun, doesn't he? Is this the best expression he could come up with to covey the sense of a happy family holiday? But, with regards to the elastic band or hair-tie in Madeleine's hair, it looks very similar to the one that Amelie was wearing in the Madeleine was Here series whet Gerry is shown arriving back at the McCann home as Kate is in the kitchen with Amelie and Sean. As Kate lets Gerry into the kitchen, Amelie starts pulling at a hair-tie in agitation and Kate takes the hair-tie off. 

In my opinion an alarmingly peculiar 'family scene' is being enacted. If it's purpose is to convey normal family life chez McCann, then the mind boggles as to what constitutes normality when the camera isn't rolling.

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

Zoom in on this copy (from mcannfiles) and see clearly that the area of hair around the elastic band (esp that below) has been manipulated.

What was attached to the elastic band that had to be removed from the picture>?