Further Analysis of the Last Photo

If you look at their faces and imagine no hats/different clothing the pictures could have been taken on the same day.

canada12 wrote:

SallyVern wrote:

missbeetle wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]"

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

Here you go...

Looking at that Donegal photo, the girls look to be the right sizes in relation to each other in the pool photo. 

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

Except that in the Donegal photo, Madeleine only has half a neck. Look closely.

Hi Canada12

I'm not an expert on photos. Rustyjames has already alerted me to why the shadows are correct on the pool photo. 

There's a high resolution photo of the one you mean:

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

But even then the lack of neck seems to be there. I'm nervous on speculating now after realising how wrong I was about the shadows in the last photo. May be someone with some knowledge (Rustyjames?) can explain why there seems to be something wrong with Madeleine's neck.

Newintown wrote:Yes, if you blow the photo up to a huge size it looks like Madeleine's head has been plonked on to the body of another child.  I've tried to hold the pose (in front of a mirror) that Madeleine has in the Donegal photo, but part of my neck is always showing which ever way I pose.

After reading your message I tried too. The sinew in my neck prevents the curve. I imagine it would be the same with a child but to be sure have you tried the experiment with a toddler/child? I'd be interested to know if there's a difference between a child and adult to how the neck reacts when turning the head.

In the booth photo of the McCanns, one can plainly see that there is something very wrong with the twins body parts. Shauna head looks too small in relation to his torso. His legs look as though they belong to a young baby as they still have that bandy look most young babies have. His hands are way too small and baby looking. Amelie looks as though her right arm has been poorly put together, too long, and perspective seems off. I am sure there are many other abnormalities to be found. Perhaps, as opined by another poster on another thread, a similar program was used to put together this composite photo, as the one that Tony Rickwood, husband of Philomina McCann, may have used to create his "Women drowning in Swamp" art.

SallyVern wrote:

Newintown wrote:Yes, if you blow the photo up to a huge size it looks like Madeleine's head has been plonked on to the body of another child.  I've tried to hold the pose (in front of a mirror) that Madeleine has in the Donegal photo, but part of my neck is always showing which ever way I pose.

After reading your message I tried too. The sinew in my neck prevents the curve. I imagine it would be the same with a child but to be sure have you tried the experiment with a toddler/child? I'd be interested to know if there's a difference between a child and adult to how the neck reacts when turning the head.

I haven't got a toddler or a child to try it on, unless I borrow one from a neighbour.   

candyfloss wrote:

missbeetle wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]"

Going back to page one of this thread, the picture of distraught Kate and Gerry outside the church...

The lady framed between the unhappy couple looks familiar.

Could she be Mrs Susan Hubbard's friend, Fernanda the church helper?

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

JD also provides this photograph of Kate and Amelie :

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

Which he helpfully labels "Allegedly taken between May 4th - May 12th, 2007"

Amelie looking very young and Kate's hair is freshly highlighted.


I have previously wondered, birth certificates aside, if :

Amelie and Sean are not twins...

Madeleine and Sean were the twins...

Amelie was their little sister, possibly born to another mother, maybe only six to nine months younger.


The usual questions about the usual suspects!


Some other housewives of note in this mysterious saga :

Mrs Jenny Murat - retired nurse, I'd say this lady has her finger firmly on the pulse of Praia da Luz.

Mrs Susan Hubbard - qualified midwife, wife of the Father whose name sounds like an contraction of 'heinous' in Standard English.

Mrs Dianne Webster - I wonder if in real life she is as dowdy and down-trodden looking as she appears to us?


My housewifely observations, anyhow...

Doh, I really do think you should stop these sort of remarks

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

Obviously a troll. Why are some banned and others not? And yes, I say this even though I am new.

Nina wrote:

Newintown wrote:

canada12 wrote:

SallyVern wrote:

missbeetle wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]"

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

Here you go...

Looking at that Donegal photo, the girls look to be the right sizes in relation to each other in the pool photo. 

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

Except that in the Donegal photo, Madeleine only has half a neck. Look closely.

Yes, if you blow the photo up to a huge size it looks like Madeleine's head has been plonked on to the body of another child.  I've tried to hold the pose (in front of a mirror) that Madeleine has in the Donegal photo, but part of my neck is always showing which ever way I pose.

With regard to the photo of the McCanns with the twins in a smiley, happy family photo booth type photo, I've looked at it many times over the years but I've only just noticed that in fact the twins look much younger in that photo than they did in the Donegal photo.  Sean also has a very different hairstyle, in the happy, smiley photo his hair is pulled back off his face, yet in the Donegal photo he has a long fringe.

I'm sure I'm not going senile at the moment, although sometimes I do wonder trying to make head nor tail of this saga, but the McCanns are very slick at "muddying" the waters in everything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

I'm sure that photo of the McCanns with the twins must have been taken some time before the Donegal photo now that I've looked at it more in depth and was not taken while they were in PDL as they seem to suggest it was.

Also both K & G McCann each have a hand on the twins' bodies, their hands look HUGE compared to the size of the twins, but if you look at the size of the twins on the Donegal photo, if a hand was placed on their bodies it would not look as huge as in the PDL happy family shot.

Quote taken from Newintown's post,
I'm sure that photo of the McCanns with the twins must have been taken some time before the Donegal photo now that I've looked at it more in depth and was not taken while they were in PDL as they seem to suggest it was.

Well Kate is wearing a good quality wristband!

Photoshopped maybe as with G's wristband.  I did think about that when I posted but who knows with the McC's and their photoshopping expert family member who has come to light.

The "punch & Judy" photo was taked in PDL during a press photo shoot so can't see how it can be fake?

The Gaspers who went on holiday with the McCann family in the first week of September 2005 and who saw the McCann family when the McCann's visited them to celebrate their daughter's first birthday in March 2007, gave statements to the police in May 2007. 

Intriguingly, given that the families appear to have been in regular contact from 2001 until March 2007, both the Gaspers give a different account of the ages of the McCann children at the time of the holiday in September 2005.

As the families appear to have met up at children's birthdays it is, perhaps, a bit odd that Mr Gasper, who is an old friend of Kate's dating back to University days, would not have known that at the time of the holiday Madeleine was well over two. But he does state the ages of the twins as six months, which would be about right, according to the birth dates given in Kate's book. (Madeleine - 12th May 2003. The twins - 1st February 2005.)

And perhaps a bit odd that Mrs Gasper, while describing Madeleine at the time of the holiday as about two and a half (which is reasonably accurate, albeit two months older) - describes the twins as 'just months old'. 

I don't know - 'just months old' has the connotation of babies of a few months - perhaps up to three or four at the most rather than babies of seven months old. 

You could say I am nit-picking but when you have very young children, you tend to be quite accurate about their exact ages (unlike when they are much older when it  all gets a bit woolly......)

I just find it a bit odd that they give different accounts of the McCann children ages at the time of the holiday. Not suggesting that there is anything suspicious or malicious in this at all. Just a little bit of a puzzle. 

Perhaps also of note is that in their police statements they state that the last time they saw all the McCann family was March 2007 when the whole McCann family visited their house for their daughter's first birthday party celebration. 

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

Shhh wrote:The "punch & Judy" photo was taked in PDL during a press photo shoot so can't see how it can be fake?

I stand corrected if it was.  Is there a link?  I remember seeing the photo in the press some time ago, but can't remember where it came from.

Versailles wrote:
Doh, I really do think you should stop these sort of remarks

Obviously a troll. Why are some banned and others not? And yes, I say this even though I am new.

I thought I was the only one to have noticed.

Although some of the posts are very, very amusing, when read in the right context, they still make a mockery of the forum.

Newintown wrote:

Shhh wrote:The "punch & Judy" photo was taked in PDL during a press photo shoot so can't see how it can be fake?

I stand corrected if it was.  Is there a link?  I remember seeing the photo in the press some time ago, but can't remember where it came from.

It seems to be from the Daily Mail.

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

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

canada12 wrote:

Newintown wrote:

Shhh wrote:The "punch & Judy" photo was taked in PDL during a press photo shoot so can't see how it can be fake?

I stand corrected if it was.  Is there a link?  I remember seeing the photo in the press some time ago, but can't remember where it came from.

It seems to be from the Daily Mail.

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

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

Thanks for that.  I wonder which photographer from the DM took the photo or if it was supplied by the McCanns to the DM.  I don't trust the McCanns on anything they say or do.

The twins still look younger to me than they do on the Donegal photo.

Ty..i dont see what the childrens clothing or an " obsession" with Gerry or errrm Geralds clothes is about...more like a session on fashion starring TM's..it isnt appearing to contribute to finding maddy

It's something that runs in the McCann family, Newintown. There's a picture of the McCann cousins at a fun run a year later, looking younger than they did in 2007!


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]     I can't post a link to the individual photo as it comes up with a load of gibberish.

It's about halfway down on the right under the section about John McCann's family.

SallyVern wrote:Hi Canada12

I'm not an expert on photos. Rustyjames has already alerted me to why the shadows are correct on the pool photo. 

There's a high resolution photo of the one you mean:

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

But even then the lack of neck seems to be there. I'm nervous on speculating now after realising how wrong I was about the shadows in the last photo. May be someone with some knowledge (Rustyjames?) can explain why there seems to be something wrong with Madeleine's neck.

Thanks for this.
If you look very closely in the space behind the left side of Madeleine's half-neck, you'll see the pattern of Amelie's striped jacket where it shouldn't actually be.

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

I've suspected from the start that Madeleine's head was replaced in this photo.

Interesting observation: she's sitting in almost the same pose as in The Last Photo. Almost identical, with head tilted and turned the same way.

kimHager wrote:Ty..i dont see what the childrens clothing or an " obsession" with Gerry or errrm Geralds clothes is about...more like a session on fashion starring TM's..it isnt appearing to contribute to finding maddy

The "obsession" with the children's clothing and GM's clothing is to determine when the photos of him and KM were actually taken.

If you look closely at the photos and what K & G and the twins and "Madeleine" were wearing and when it does tell a story.

canada12 wrote:

SallyVern wrote:Hi Canada12

I'm not an expert on photos. Rustyjames has already alerted me to why the shadows are correct on the pool photo. 

There's a high resolution photo of the one you mean:

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

But even then the lack of neck seems to be there. I'm nervous on speculating now after realising how wrong I was about the shadows in the last photo. May be someone with some knowledge (Rustyjames?) can explain why there seems to be something wrong with Madeleine's neck.

Thanks for this.
If you look very closely in the space behind the left side of Madeleine's half-neck, you'll see the pattern of Amelie's striped jacket where it shouldn't actually be.

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

I've suspected from the start that Madeleine's head was replaced in this photo.

Interesting observation: she's sitting in almost the same pose as in The Last Photo. Almost identical, with head tilted and turned the same way.

Yes, canada 12, I commented on that, as well as Amelie, upthread.

Yes newintown i totally understand how it does that, but some things as how Gerry should clean his clothing and such might be saw as a bit too much on that ....I know some of it is relevant but as others have said it can appear as some people are using it to disrupt or go off topic on the thread and appear as a troll. Im not in any way saying people do it intentionally as i dont know, however when used as you say to show where they were or use it in conjuction with PDL weather reports and such it DOES give everyone an idea of what was really going on.

kimHager wrote:Yes newintown i totally understand how it does that, but some things as how Gerry should clean his clothing and such might be saw as  a bit too much on that ....I know some of it is relevant but as others have said it can appear as some people are using it to disrupt or go off topic on the thread and appear as a troll. Im not in any way saying people do it intentionally as i dont know, however when used as you say to show where they were or use it in conjuction with PDL weather reports and such it DOES give everyone an idea of what was really going on.

I didn't understand that remark either and had forgotten about it until you've just mentioned it.  It may have been an "in joke" with some of the members on this forum; I can't see the point of that remark myself but there may be a point to it that neither you or I have picked up on unless it's spelt out to us "innocent" beings.   

If the Donegal photos have been manipulated then it would implicate Uncle John's involvement as the two other children are his.  The wider McCann family are playing a vital part in preventing justice for MBM and I hope they will be punished eventually for their criminal behaviour.  All my opinion.

I personally find it very hard to believe that John McCann - and most, if not all of the immediate family - are not up to their scrawny necks in all this.

Newintown wrote:

kimHager wrote:Yes newintown i totally understand how it does that, but some things as how Gerry should clean his clothing and such might be saw as  a bit too much on that ....I know some of it is relevant but as others have said it can appear as some people are using it to disrupt or go off topic on the thread and appear as a troll. Im not in any way saying people do it intentionally as i dont know, however when used as you say to show where they were or use it in conjuction with PDL weather reports and such it DOES give everyone an idea of what was really going on.

I didn't understand that remark either and had forgotten about it until you've just mentioned it.  It may have been an "in joke" with some of the members on this forum; I can't see the point of that remark myself but there may be a point to it that neither you or I have picked up on unless it's spelt out to us "innocent" beings.   

perhaps as in borrowed soiled clothing - to confuse dna/snifferdogs?

Confusion is good

All in my own opinion

Yes, No Fate, I agree.  What a dysfunctional, disgusting family.  Unfortunately, they all have children who inevitably have to grow up and become adults themselves.  I feel sorry for them.

Ahh yes BCB..good ole confusion i think that might have been the most honest wierd thing he has said to the public..however good for the fund and not madeleine.

Yes newintown i still say take it to the cleaners they can sort his wash...but come to think of it they only used the MW facility's washer and dryer ONE time,how on earth did that go no wonder they have dirty nappies piling up,they are not very hygenic lot are they. I DONT believe kate hand washed clothes so...i think they put maddys clothes on Amelie..and Amelies clothing on maddy or even seans shirt had cadaverine scent that didnt wash out...it would be one way to throw off the dogs

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I personally find it very hard to believe that John McCann - and most, if not all of the immediate family - are not up to their scrawny necks in all this.

Too true, seeing as the "Fund" was to help the wider family, they're not going to look a gift horse in the mouth.

I have today spent every moment that I could spare reading every single word in this thread that's been posted from Day 1 and making rough notes.  Ignoring all the comments about the tennis Photo, and other photos, and by lumping similar comments together I am left with a list of 64 anomalies. My intention was to consider, and give a view on each point, but it's going to take me far longer than I expected. In addition almost every point has been discussed already and some posters have already effectively addressed some anomalies very well.

If I remove from my list the more far-fetched ones, (such as there being three separate human ghosts, and also two ghost dogs in the background (!), Amelie having no nostrils, etc.), and also ones that are subjective and/or impossible to assess, (e.g. Gerry looks grumpy, kids should be looking at the camera, etc.), I think the list will only have a dozen or so key 'issues', (e.g. reflection in the shades, GM 'floating, the weather, apparent 'photoshopping', etc.).  

I've got to catch up now on some (much overdue) work... but here's a quick summary (n.b. I've honestly tried has hard as possible not to be biased in any way and to look at each point posted by fellow members as objectively as possible):

(i) Has it been photoshopped in any way - Not as far as I can see, (part of my income is earned by manipulating photos so I'm reasonably familiar with the things to look for). Sorry, but all the bulges, shadows, transparent bits, odd lines, etc. are seen in most of the photos I work with every day and are commonplace if people are trying to pick holes in any given photo
(ii) Is the photo fake - Yes, it seems very, very, unlikely to have been taken on the 3rd and thus TM claiming it to be taken on that date is a falsehood. Furthermore if the timestamp has also been altered than that's forgery. Peter Mac has already provided ample comment on this and provided evidence re: the weather.
(iii) The two image anomalies that did make me stop and think were the shadowing beneath GM's legs and the reflection in his shades. After giving them much thought, trying very to see evidence of manipulation, I can't see anything wrong and they do seem to be AOK. I intend to do some diagrams to explain my rational so as my thinking can of course be challenged. The basics are: Any shadow under GM's right thigh, as can be seen under Amelie's thigh, would be small and is hidden by his hand...and the reflection in the shades shows the right hand edge of the relatively small circular pool, (thus effectively a 'vertical curve). The concave lens, as almost all lenses are, would serve to somewhat 'straighten' the pool's edge in its reflection back to the photographer, resulting in the straightish vertical edge that is seen in the reflection, (the pink thing may be MBM's discarded shoe?).  I've even considered whether the pool's surface, reflected in the lens has been 'smoothed' for some reason, (since there are splashes seen in the air in front of MBM & A I wondered if we'd have seen a ripple or two... but without a practical experiment I can't say.  However, all other 'anomalies' with the photo I am confident I can explain, (at least to my own satisfaction... if no one else  ).

 p.s. Canada12... Thank you again for all those pool pics. I'll knock up a few images to show how I think it's safe to say the reflection in GM's shades is the right hand edge of the round pool so as anyone interested can check my rough angles, etc.  I couldn't have done that bit without you so speedily passing those pics on to me 

P.P.S> ... Just remembered... I didn't do anything about working out who had what clothes on. It's not an area of any expertise and it seems lots of comments have been made about buying muilti-packs...or not.. of kid's clothes, etc.

Thanks Sonmi-451. There are some small anomalies in The Last Photo which I'd like you to take a close look at, using the high-res photo on page 1 of this thread.

The anomalies are:

1. Madeleine's little braid, on the left side of her head as she faces us. There is a definite line running across her hair below the elastic band. It's a different colour from the rest of her hair. In addition, above the elastic band, it's supposed to be a braid, but it disappears into nothing, and loses all definition.

2. Madeleine's left arm, on our right as she faces us. If you increase the size of the photo about 3x, and look at the outside of her arm, you'll see a brown line which runs along the edge of her arm, down past her wrist. If you were looking at a normal photo of an arm, you'd expect the line of her arm to indent at her wrist. We can see the contour of her skin indenting at her wrist, but the outside brown line, which is about 2 pixels wide, continues straight, without indenting at her wrist. If I were a photoshopper, I would say that this is a remnant of cropping and pasting, and the two pixel line wasn't cleaned up.

3. Behind Amelie is a black and white object on the pool deck. We could argue that this is the depth indicator, which you can see in the photo I posted above somewhere, of the pool without people. However the pool depth indicator is white, and has a black edge on it on the bottom. The object behind Amelie is black at the top, and it has a white edge on the bottom. I can't see any way to confidently explain this. Perhaps you could give it a try.

4. You can clearly see the edge of the pool behind Madeleine, curving behind her back. Yet if you look at the edge of the pool where Amelie is sitting, which is the next time we see it, it doesn't seem to link up in a properly curving perspective, if we assume that the black and white thing behind her is the depth indicator.

Thanks.. I haven't been able to explain any of these anomalies to my satisfaction - maybe you could have a very close look at them and tell me what you think. :-)

canada12 wrote:Thanks Sonmi-451. There are some small anomalies in The Last Photo which I'd like you to take a close look at, using the high-res photo on page 1 of this thread.

The anomalies are:

1. Madeleine's little braid, on the left side of her head as she faces us. There is a definite line running across her hair below the elastic band. It's a different colour from the rest of her hair. In addition, above the elastic band, it's supposed to be a braid, but it disappears into nothing, and loses all definition.

2. Madeleine's left arm, on our right as she faces us. If you increase the size of the photo about 3x, and look at the outside of her arm, you'll see a brown line which runs along the edge of her arm, down past her wrist. If you were looking at a normal photo of an arm, you'd expect the line of her arm to indent at her wrist. We can see the contour of her skin indenting at her wrist, but the outside brown line, which is about 2 pixels wide, continues straight, without indenting at her wrist. If I were a photoshopper, I would say that this is a remnant of cropping and pasting, and the two pixel line wasn't cleaned up.

3. Behind Amelie is a black and white object on the pool deck. We could argue that this is the depth indicator, which you can see in the photo I posted above somewhere, of the pool without people. However the pool depth indicator is white, and has a black edge on it on the bottom. The object behind Amelie is black at the top, and it has a white edge on the bottom. I can't see any way to confidently explain this. Perhaps you could give it a try.

4. You can clearly see the edge of the pool behind Madeleine, curving behind her back. Yet if you look at the edge of the pool where Amelie is sitting, which is the next time we see it, it doesn't seem to link up in a properly curving perspective, if we assume that the black and white thing behind her is the depth indicator.

Thanks.. I haven't been able to explain any of these anomalies to my satisfaction - maybe you could have a very close look at them and tell me what you think. :-)

Will do... I'll go into more detail when I'm not covered in varnish after catching up engraving some wedding photos...  

(1) The splodgy bit below the braid I've looked at and is indeed the only 'possible' photoshopping bit I might yet be able to be convinced by, (I'm aware of the concerns about the 'bead' that may/may not have been found after the 4th and KM writing about removing something from MBM's hair so it is odd... the Mystery Writer in me imagined finding a statement by a cleaner saying they found such a bead on, say, the 2nd... which would have helped show this photo preceded that date... but that's just my active my wishful thinking and over-active imagination!!!)... (2) I think the contrast band on the wrist is a symptom of how digital cameras process images. I'll do the technical bit that might explain it when I have time..that might also explain (3) the high contrast of the pool edge behind Amelie and a raised tile, (that's my first thoughts...and liable to change!)... and as for '4' I don't think I can explain that one.. is it an optical illusion or evidence of manipulation?   I fear that the only way to check that one out might be to take a 3 and 4 yr old and an adult and sit them in the exact same place. I will try and draw some vector lines over the curve though to at least fairly share the results...

I must dash now... Sorry for my haste... I gotta finish tons of stuff for posting tomorow :D G'night !