Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by Atomic Peanut 01.11.14 22:27

Thanks Admin

Regarding C12's question (and this will be my final post of the day in case it looks as if I am staging a takeover of this topic)

If you compare the last photo with a similar pic taken by stressedoutmother in Sept 2007, there are differences in tone. The pool surround is lighter in the last photo, so maybe in reality the skin tones should be darker too. Can't prove though

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

please share your thoughts bobbin!
Goodnight, AP

by canada12 01.11.14 22:47

Atomic Peanut wrote:Thanks Admin

Regarding C12's question (and this will be my final post of the day in case it looks as if I am staging a takeover of this topic)

If you compare the last photo with a similar pic taken by stressedoutmother in Sept 2007, there are differences in tone. The pool surround is lighter in the last photo, so maybe in reality the skin tones should be darker too. Can't prove though

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

please share your thoughts bobbin!
Goodnight, AP

Ah yes, but you'll notice that the tiled portion of the pool in The Last Photo is darker than the tiled portion in HiDeHo's version of the picture. Also the wall behind them is darker in The Last Photo, as is the large tree trunk (if you look at a full shot of both pictures). And the tan coloured pool deck is almost exactly the same colour in both.

So I don't think that solves it, unfortunately.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.11.14 23:03

Atomic Peanut wrote:Where I am going is that posters have repeatedly referred to 3rd May as having been too cool and cloudy for spending time by the pool
I have successfully pointed out that this is not necessarily true, and you appear to have agreed with me that it might have been taken on that day
The weather conditions you quote are not for the microclimate around the pool, they are for another part of PdL, and there could be huge differences. In particular, wind speed keeps being pointlessly quoted from charts when that reading is taken 10m off the ground, and nobody spends any time up there

I have had lunch on my sheltered patio in the UK in March when it is far too cold and windy out in the open

I have no idea when the last photo was taken, or even if it is real, but there is a chance that it may have been taken on 3rd May

I do hope I am not banned from the forum for having a different opinion from most others because I am not here to cause trouble, I am here to correct what I perceive to be misconceptions, thus leading to the truth. In other words, I am trying to help

@ Atomic Peanut

Could you please simply answer my three questions.

You said "I am trying to help".

REPLY: This seems very unlikely, if in fact (as I think you must) you concede my three points - I await your reply.

I still cannot fathom why you are so insistent on packing post after post with details trying to convince us that the pool really was a warm, sunny and cosy spot to be on 3 May - when the overwhelming evidence seems to be against it.

Moreover, the unexplained delay of three weeks in producing this photo - when it was available the night Madeleine went missing - cries out for a rational explanation, and we are here trying to find out what the true explanation is. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm unaware of any contribution you have made so far towards solving this baffling conundrum.

All I see is you droning on about WSW winds, microclimates, cosy warm spots out of the wind, and your reliance on brief 'sunny intervals' on a day which undoubtedly was cloudy and cool in Praia da Luz.

Let's put it this way, AP, it doesn't look as though you're helping.

You also said: "I do hope I am not banned from the forum for having a different opinion from most others". And Admin has given you a correct answer to that on behalf of her forum.

However, judgments have to be made at the end of the day sometimes about whether a person has joined the forum to help or hinder.

by Woofer 01.11.14 23:16

Admin - just seen your new avatar.

Arise Sir Gerald Mrs

Love it.

by Guest 02.11.14 6:38

Woofer wrote:Admin - just seen your new avatar.

Arise Sir Gerald

Love it.

by bobbin 02.11.14 8:07

admin wrote:
Woofer wrote:Admin - just seen your new avatar.

Arise Sir Gerald

Love it.

Better be careful the good lady doesn't slip forwards. She's getting very old and that heavy sword must be quite a handful to hold steady. big grin

IMO

by bobbin 02.11.14 8:21

Atomic Peanut wrote:Thanks Admin

Regarding C12's question (and this will be my final post of the day in case it looks as if I am staging a takeover of this topic)

If you compare the last photo with a similar pic taken by stressedoutmother in Sept 2007, there are differences in tone. The pool surround is lighter in the last photo, so maybe in reality the skin tones should be darker too. Can't prove though

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

please share your thoughts bobbin!
Goodnight, AP

Thanks for posting a good image of the 'last photo'. I had been searching everywhere to find one.
I must say though, I have now seen something which I had never noticed before, and it absolutely clinches the fact that Gerry McC, at least, has been photo-shopped.

Perhaps, after all the previous speculation, the photo was in fact, more to demonstrate G McC in the vicinity at that time, and not Maddie, which makes me now question, WHERE IN FACT WAS HE ?

I did get the feeling, as Tony above, that your contribution here seemed more like hindrance than help, but seriously, you have helped an inordinate amount.

If someone had been here, to hinder, then the phrase 'hoist with his own petard' would be in order, but since you assure us you are here to help, let me say a big 'thank you'.

The information has now been sent to a wide variety of photo analysts and it is out of my hands.
I will not be putting the information here, since it is not us on this forum, whose voices will be important when the whole McC farce is unravelled.
Let's just be content that it is in the right hands. airkiss

by Guest 02.11.14 8:22

I will ask again... at what point between 13.00 and 14.30 did the McCanns decide to get on the skimpy summer gear and go for a paddle in the pool?

Did you see the temperatures leading up to 14.30? (Which wasn't particularly warm at that point either).

It is much more likely they did this on the warmer of the days.

You have to add that to the suspicious circumstances surrounding the production of that photo.

by Atomic Peanut 02.11.14 9:22

I will make this my last post on the subject as everything I feel I need to say is either in previous posts or included in this answer. Re the delay in issuing the last photo, I don't really have a comment, I joined in with the photographic and weather aspects of the playground and last photos because it's one of the few small areas of minor "expertise" that I can claim to have! I was asked to agree or disagree with three observations, so here goes:

1. The temperature between about 12noon and 3pm on 3 May was about 17-18C (64F) but about 20-21C (70C) on 29 & 30 April These are air temperatures, which are recorded in the shade, usually with the thermometer inside a ventilated box, therefore they don't take into account the increase in temperature that occurs in the sun. The difference can be as much as 10-15C, particularly with a strong high Portuguese sun in May during the early afternoon

2. It was cloudy with only brief sunny intervals on 3 May, but mostly sunny throughout 29 & 30 April

The clouds on 3rd May were white fairweather clouds, not a sheet of grey. Generally speaking, fairweather clouds come and go. I don't know the sun/cloud ratio at 2.30pm on 3rd May but the temperature would have shot up when the sun came out (but wouldn't have been recorded by the weather station because the thermometer is out of the sun). The PdL weather records show quantities of cloud at two different heights but it doesn't say how much. The charts give the impression that the cloud was continuous but that's because they don't distinguish between continuous cloud and, say, a 50-50 split. Out of the wind (ie no wind chill) and in the sun (radiation) our skin would not record the temperatures in the same way as a thermometer in the shade. I suspect on that day it felt more like the mid 20s by the sheltered pool in the sunshine

3. That given what we know about the respective temperatures and amount of sun on 3 May compared with 29 & 30 April, it is far more likely that the ‘Last Photo’ was taken on either 29 or 30 April rather than 3 May. A photograph only records a snapshot of history - one moment in time. All we need to know is that the sun was out when it was taken (which it was, hence the harsh shadows). 5 mins before and after the photo they may have had their cardigans on, we just don't know. So we can't deduce anything about which of the 3 dates was the more likely

Summarising, there is nothing in that one photograph that would enable me to say that it wasn't taken at 2.30pm on 3rd May. As to the other mysteries of the last photo, that isn't my department I'm afraid

Thank you for taking the time to read my observations

by juliet 02.11.14 9:32

I never understand why people make such an effort, poring over ancient weather charts, jotting down wind speeds etc, to try to prove when the last photo was taken. It doesn't matter in the slightest as the whole thing is a mess of photoshopped shammery!

by Carrry On Doctor 02.11.14 9:45

FWIW one of the things that makes a poolside feel warmer is the sun heating the tiles. If the tiles were cold then this would make the poolside area cold and quite unappealing, and especially so if you were sitting on them, as per the photo. Dangling their feet in the pool would have made them feel colder still.

Even with some wind shielding from surrounding buildings, it would need to be significantly warmer and sunnier than the actual weather conditions for this photo to be likely.

29th - Yes, quite possibly, a warm sunny day and excited to be on holiday, but not the 3rd. Not a day for sitting by the pool. So many other reports of people feeling cold on that day too.

IMO of course

by **Tony Bennett** 02.11.14 9:59

bobbin wrote:
Thanks for posting a good image of the 'last photo'. I had been searching everywhere to find one.

I must say though, I have now seen something which I had never noticed before, and it absolutely clinches the fact that Gerry McC, at least, has been photo-shopped.

Perhaps, after all the previous speculation, the photo was in fact, more to demonstrate G McC in the vicinity at that time, and not Maddie, which makes me now question, WHERE IN FACT WAS HE?

The information has now been sent to a wide variety of photo analysts and it is out of my hands.

I will not be putting the information here, since it is not us on this forum, whose voices will be important when the whole McC farce is unravelled.

Let's just be content that it is in the right hands.

Good morning bobbin.

As you know, we have a major disagreement on the origin of the 'Last Photo'.

Your view: There is clear evidence of photoshopping.

The view of myself and PeterMac, after he consulted two top experts on photoshopping: The photo is a genuine photo taken earlier in the week, with the date and time stampo altered to show '2.29pm' on Thursday 3 May, which is interpreted as one of many attempts to prove that Madeleine was alive at that time.

Now, PeterMac is I think under a confidentiality arrangement, at least, that is, insofar as he cannot name his two experts.

Whether he is prepared to share their conclusions, and reasons for them, is a matter for him.

But if I may, I would like to summarise my reasons for preferring the view that the 'Last Photo' was taken on a different day, probably Sunday 29th, but maybe Monday 30th:

1. The three people on the photograph were, on the evidence, there that week in Praia da Luz; their faces and dress accord with other available photographs of them at this time. None of the three individuals look as though they have been 'imported' from a differernt place and date

2. The shadow lengths are very short, and cannot be faked. They are fully consistent with a photograph taken at that time of year on the Algarve, almost certainly close to the time when the sun would be at its zenith that time of year, i.e. 1.30pm (BST and Portugal time, which are the same)

3. Altering the date and time stamp is a far easier and much less risky operation than photoshopping

4. There is no clear, unambigous evidence that the photo is photoshopped, compared with the evidence we have that the Last Photo clearly looks as though it was taken on a very warm, very sunny day - i.e. Sunday or Monday.

Whilst we have opposed views on this vexed question of the genesis of the 'Last Photo', and whilst I appreciate that this subject has been raked over many many times, I hope you might be able to share with us, once again, your precise reasons for considering that the photo is photoshopped, rather than simply having had its date and time changed.

The 'Last Photo' is such an important factual issue in this whole mystery, I hope we can have a constructive debate on which of these two alternatives best fits the facts.

TIA

by worriedmum 02.11.14 10:17

BlueBag wrote:I will ask again... at what point between 13.00 and 14.30 did the McCanns decide to get on the skimpy summer gear and go for a paddle in the pool?

Did you see the temperatures leading up to 14.30? (Which wasn't particularly warm at that point either).

It is much more likely they did this on the warmer of the days.

You have to add that to the suspicious circumstances surrounding the production of that photo.

I have been wondering how they found the time to fit all of this in,whether at 1.29 or 2.29.

Hope it is okay to copy this from ''Little Morsals''...

''11:15am (Gerry’s 2nd statement 10th May) Gerry stayed at the pool zone conversing with his wife and other people and at 12:00pm as far as Gerry can remember Kate makes lunch while he went to get Madeleine from the crèche. He thinks that it was Kate who took the twins home.

10:00am – 12:25pm (Kate’s statement) Kate went to recreation centre next to the pool to talk with Russell until Gerry’s lesson was over then she thinks they then went to the apartment. After lunch they went to the recreation area next to the pool because the children were restless, remaining there for an hour maybe more. (No mention of them in the pool or taking photos)

12:25pm ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) Kate signed Madeleine out of Lobster Crèche

12:30pm (Gerry’s 2nd statement 10th May) they began lunch

12:35 – 12:40 pm (Kate’s statement) They all went to apartment for lunch.

1:30pm (Gerry’s 2nd statement 10th May) they went to the recreation area, Gerry leaving the apartment via front door and Kate and children leaving via back glass doors

2.30/2.35pm (Gerry’s 2nd statement 10th May) signed twins into Jellyfish crèche, then Madeleine Gerry and Kate left the crèche in the principle area

2:45pm ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]) Kate signed Sean and Amelie into Jellyfish Crèche

2:50pm (Gerry’s 2nd Statement from 10th May) left Madeleine at the Lobster’s crèche but doesn’t remember if they signed the register or not.''

NB on the creche sheet whoever has written her name in at 14.50 they have spelled it 'Madelene'', it is signed K McCann

Also this is the new holiday outfit Madeleine is wearing. Did she wear it to the creche? Didn't they go sailing?

by plebgate 02.11.14 10:55

bobbin wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:Thanks Admin

Regarding C12's question (and this will be my final post of the day in case it looks as if I am staging a takeover of this topic)

If you compare the last photo with a similar pic taken by stressedoutmother in Sept 2007, there are differences in tone. The pool surround is lighter in the last photo, so maybe in reality the skin tones should be darker too. Can't prove though

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

please share your thoughts bobbin!
Goodnight, AP
Thanks for posting a good image of the 'last photo'. I had been searching everywhere to find one.
I must say though, I have now seen something which I had never noticed before, and it absolutely clinches the fact that Gerry McC, at least, has been photo-shopped.

Perhaps, after all the previous speculation, the photo was in fact, more to demonstrate G McC in the vicinity at that time, and not Maddie, which makes me now question, WHERE IN FACT WAS HE ?

I did get the feeling, as Tony above, that your contribution here seemed more like hindrance than help, but seriously, you have helped an inordinate amount.

If someone had been here, to hinder, then the phrase 'hoist with his own petard' would be in order, but since you assure us you are here to help, let me say a big 'thank you'.

The information has now been sent to a wide variety of photo analysts and it is out of my hands.
I will not be putting the information here, since it is not us on this forum, whose voices will be important when the whole McC farce is unravelled.
Let's just be content that it is in the right hands.

I am content and thank you bobbin for at least letting us know that something is happening in background.

Thank you too AP for your help.

by Guest 02.11.14 10:59

Atomic Peanut wrote:2. It was cloudy with only brief sunny intervals on 3 May, but mostly sunny throughout 29 & 30 April

So.. when did they decide to put the skimpy summer gear on for a day of brief sunny intervals? (If indeed there was any sun).

I presume they went to the creche dressed the same?

Look at the Portimao wind-surfing videos.

Fleeces and dense grey cloud to the west (where PDL is).

by Liz Eagles 02.11.14 11:04

BlueBag wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:2. It was cloudy with only brief sunny intervals on 3 May, but mostly sunny throughout 29 & 30 April
So.. when did they decide to put the skimpy summer gear on for a day of brief sunny intervals? (If indeed there was any sun).

I presume they went to the creche dressed the same?

Look at the Portimao wind-surfing videos.

Fleeces and dense grey cloud to the west (where PDL is).

I've yet to see anything (and I hope to so if I'm wrong please correct me) from those in the creche/care of Madeleine, those in Tapas 7 to say exactly what Madeleine McCann was wearing when they last saw her - apart from David Payne who said the kids were in mostly white and looked like angels when he popped in for 30 seconds, 30 minutes, when Kate was/was not wearing a towel, at the time of the children's bedtime which was or wasn't around 6pm.

by NickE 02.11.14 11:14

bobbin wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:Thanks Admin

Regarding C12's question (and this will be my final post of the day in case it looks as if I am staging a takeover of this topic)

If you compare the last photo with a similar pic taken by stressedoutmother in Sept 2007, there are differences in tone. The pool surround is lighter in the last photo, so maybe in reality the skin tones should be darker too. Can't prove though

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

please share your thoughts bobbin!
Goodnight, AP
Thanks for posting a good image of the 'last photo'. I had been searching everywhere to find one.
I must say though, I have now seen something which I had never noticed before, and it absolutely clinches the fact that Gerry McC, at least, has been photo-shopped.

Perhaps, after all the previous speculation, the photo was in fact, more to demonstrate G McC in the vicinity at that time, and not Maddie, which makes me now question, WHERE IN FACT WAS HE ?

I did get the feeling, as Tony above, that your contribution here seemed more like hindrance than help, but seriously, you have helped an inordinate amount.

If someone had been here, to hinder, then the phrase 'hoist with his own petard' would be in order, but since you assure us you are here to help, let me say a big 'thank you'.

The information has now been sent to a wide variety of photo analysts and it is out of my hands.
I will not be putting the information here, since it is not us on this forum, whose voices will be important when the whole McC farce is unravelled.
Let's just be content that it is in the right hands.

I think GM was with his pal Robert Murat, somewhere around Palmares Golf Club.
IMO

by Atomic Peanut 02.11.14 11:32

BlueBag wrote:So.. when did they decide to put the skimpy summer gear on for a day of brief sunny intervals? (If indeed there was any sun).

I've already said they may have had their cardigans on 5 mins before and after the last photo, everybody does that sort of thing when they go to the beach on a day when it's intermittently warm sun and then cloudy (please see my last post for an explanation of why that was probably true for 3rd May 2007 in OC). The last photo only represents 1 second in time, not the whole hour. The fact is that the 1 sec of the last photo tells us nothing about the rest of the hour

by Liz Eagles 02.11.14 11:37

Atomic Peanut wrote:
BlueBag wrote:So.. when did they decide to put the skimpy summer gear on for a day of brief sunny intervals? (If indeed there was any sun).
I've already said they may have had their cardigans on 5 mins before and after the last photo, everybody does that sort of thing when they go to the beach on a day when it's intermittently warm sun and then cloudy (please see my last post for an explanation of why that was probably true for 3rd May 2007 in OC). The last photo only represents 1 second in time, not the whole hour

Isn't there a proud moment from Kate when she was looking at her so happy, swinging her arms and Kate couldn't help feeling worried she hadn't brought a cardigan for Madeleine?

Sorry, this is nonsense. They weren't a million miles away from apartment 5a, Kate could have nipped back for a cardigan - oooh just like she had to nip back and get her camera to take a 'proud mother' moment.

by Guest 02.11.14 11:38

Atomic Peanut, if we accept that the pool photo is genuine, i.e. not photoshopped and taken on Thursday pm, 3rd May, therefore MBM was alive on that day, what do you theorise happened during the next few hours before she was reported taken from her bed by her mother at 10pm?

by juliet 02.11.14 11:39

But Madeleine didn't have a cardigan. Her mother Kate was worried about not having brought one as she "watched admiringly Madeleine swinging her bare arms" (as you don't) on this "cool" day. Give it up AP...better try to explain why Madeleine's head has been pasted badly onto a younger child's body.

by palm tree 02.11.14 11:41

Do we need to count the time for GMs head getting sunburn and what looks to me, sweat droplets?

by juliet 02.11.14 11:44

I expect AP will say Gerry was hot and red because he had

just been doing 100 press ups, or was suffering from a sudden fever.

by Atomic Peanut 02.11.14 11:46

Ladyinred wrote:Atomic Peanut, if we accept that the pool photo is genuine, i.e. not photoshopped and taken on Thursday pm, 3rd May, therefore MBM was alive on that day, what do you theorise happened during the next few hours before she was reported taken from her bed by her mother at 10pm?

Hello LIR, I didn't say it was taken at 2.30 on 3rd May, I said there was nothing to suggest it hadn't. I just don't think you can deduce anything at all. What amazes me is that there has been 7 years of debate over the last photo, without conclusion, when the really weird photo is the playground pic. It's almost as if we're being distracted away from talking about that one by being dragged into an endless discussion about the other

Juliet - I used cardigan as a generic term. Substitute "warmer top" or something else
Palm tree - According to the Boyd family, Gerry had been playing tennis just before joining them all at the pool. That makes you sweat

I'm not trying to hold up the last photo as an indisputable historical record. I'm just saying that it might have been taken on 3rd May, then again it might not

by jeanmonroe 02.11.14 11:53

I'm not trying to hold up the last photo as an indisputable historical record. I'm just saying that it might have been taken on 3rd May, then again it might not
---------------------------------------------

Thankyou AP.

You sound just like DCI Mahogany!

"may have been or may not have been"

"could of been but could not have been"

"might have or might not have"

by plebgate 02.11.14 11:55

AFAIAC PeterM has paid out of his own pocket for expert advice from two people. He did post about this and I am still inclined to believe what those experts have to say rather than posts from an unknown person who ends up saying well, it may or may not be this that or tother.

Re. the playground pic. you say is of importance Atomic Peanut, why not start a thread about it?

by Atomic Peanut 02.11.14 12:00

jeanmonroe wrote:I'm not trying to hold up the last photo as an indisputable historical record. I'm just saying that it might have been taken on 3rd May, then again it might not
---------------------------------------------
Thankyou AP.
You sound just like DCI Mahogany! "may have been or may not have been" "could of been but could not have been" "might have or might not have"

Thank you JM, but I can't deduce anything from it so I leave that to others. They have strong views and have said they consulted experts, good. But the conclusions must be based on fact, and that is where I have tried to explain errors that have been made about the weather (like the air temperature being measured in the shade and the wind speed being taken 10m off the ground) Meanwhile, do you have any comments about the playground pic? Every time it's brought up, the discussion is buried by distractions or diverted towards the last photo
Plebgate - there have been several threads about the playground pic but they quickly dry up
The playground pic is important because it is supposed to have been taken nearly a day earlier than the last photo, so it would make sense to analyse that one first

by palm tree 02.11.14 12:07

Atomic Peanut wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Atomic Peanut, if we accept that the pool photo is genuine, i.e. not photoshopped and taken on Thursday pm, 3rd May, therefore MBM was alive on that day, what do you theorise happened during the next few hours before she was reported taken from her bed by her mother at 10pm?
Hello LIR, I didn't say it was taken at 2.30 on 3rd May, I said there was nothing to suggest it hadn't. I just don't think you can deduce anything at all. What amazes me is that there has been 7 years of debate over the last photo, without conclusion, when the really weird photo is the playground pic. It's almost as if we're being distracted away from talking about that one by being dragged into an endless discussion about the other

Juliet - I used cardigan as a generic term. Substitute "warmer top" or something else
Palm tree - According to the Boyd family, Gerry had been playing tennis just before joining them all at the pool. That makes you sweat

I'm not trying to hold up the last photo as an indisputable historical record. I'm just saying that it might have been taken on 3rd May, then again it might not

1:29 GM says himself he's leaving the apartment for the recreation area.
2:29 GM says himself he is signing the twins into the Jellyfish crèche.

by Liz Eagles 02.11.14 12:13

Atomic Peanut wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:I'm not trying to hold up the last photo as an indisputable historical record. I'm just saying that it might have been taken on 3rd May, then again it might not
---------------------------------------------
Thankyou AP.
You sound just like DCI Mahogany! "may have been or may not have been" "could of been but could not have been" "might have or might not have"
Thank you JM, but I can't deduce anything from it so I leave that to others. They have strong views and have said they consulted experts, good. But the conclusions must be based on fact, and that is where I have tried to explain errors that have been made about the weather (like the air temperature being measured in the shade and the wind speed being taken 10m off the ground) Meanwhile, do you have any comments about the playground pic? Every time it's brought up, the discussion is buried by distractions or diverted towards the last photo
Plebgate - there have been several threads about the playground pic but they quickly dry up
The playground pic is important because it is supposed to have been taken nearly a day earlier than the last photo, so it would make sense to analyse that one first

AP, do you have any proof of the kiddies' pool being a sheltered haven in a break between the clouds?

I've looked at your reasoning. I've lived in a hot European country by the sea. I've been able to sit in a t shirt on my patio in April - that's mostly because it was sheltered by walls very close to me. I can't see anything sheltered in the Ocean Club - no matter what wind speed, what vertical level is used to calculate it, what walls etc surrounding it. I can't see anything that makes the kiddies' pool a little sheltered haven.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.11.14 12:37

aquila wrote:
AP, do you have any proof of the kiddies' pool being a sheltered haven in a break between the clouds?

I've looked at your reasoning. I've lived in a hot European country by the sea. I've been able to sit in a t shirt on my patio in April - that's mostly because it was sheltered by walls very close to me. I can't see anything sheltered in the Ocean Club - no matter what wind speed, what vertical level is used to calculate it, what walls etc surrounding it. I can't see anything that makes the kiddies' pool a little sheltered haven.

By the time we get to 10.00pm on 3 May, it must have been a roaring gale blowing - to forcefully slam the children's door shut - when we are told by Dr Kate McCann that all the doors in the apartment were shut.

It seems to run against the law of physics...a draught requires an entrance for the wind, but also an exit.

I suppose a Force 12 hurricane might conceivably have done that.

I think it was around Force 3 to 4 when the Last Photo was supposed to have been taken.

And, says Atomic Peanut, the wind was WSW.

Are you sure it wasn't WSW by S, Peanut?

Or maybe WSW by W?

It might make a difference, you know.

Earlier in your career on this forum, you wrote:

"It doesn't make sense that New Scotland Yard would have taken such an active role in revitalising a shelved case just to close it again via a cover-up".

We differ on that, as well