Re: Alex Woolfall 'knows': 'The Last Photo', and other photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz

by BarryTheHatchet 04.06.16 21:14

We would all love to see an original, untouched copy of that photo - well, just about any photo, really - of poor wee Madeleine. Sadly, this isn't it. I'd also love to find evidence of the fridge. Believe me, I've spent nine years searching.

by worriedmum 04.06.16 21:23

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

by Bayonne 04.06.16 21:26

BarryTheHatchet wrote:We would all love to see an original, untouched copy of that photo - well, just about any photo, really - of poor wee Madeleine. Sadly, this isn't it. I'd also love to find evidence of the fridge. Believe me, I've spent nine years searching.

Ohhhh the fridge. I haven't seen that many references to it in the forums and sites I've been looking around. Only whispers...something about Gerry getting rid of one. Is there a thread on here where I might read about it? With the risk of sounding like a nincompoop another time... would it not need to be a freezer? Are there other ways to preserve a body? After 9 years I suspect you may know....
I'll be getting told off soon for going offtopic

by BarryTheHatchet 04.06.16 21:28

Who knows how the minds of these people work, worriedmum coffee

by Roxyroo 06.06.16 6:09

BarryTheHatchet wrote:Ah yes, Sharon from the utterly grotesque "Helping to Find Madeleine" coven.
Do you mean the picture of Madeleine with the baby twins in bouncy cribs?
The picture I have the issue with is the one with Granny Healy at 0:48. Absolutely bizarre.

Sorry, I apologise, I got the time wrong!

by **Jill Havern** 06.06.16 9:15

BarryTheHatchet wrote:
The picture I have the issue with is the one with Granny Healy at 0:48. Absolutely bizarre.

Why?

by BarryTheHatchet 06.06.16 9:42

The photoshopped Maddie with the Everton top and the braids. That's about the worst photoshop I've ever seen. Why all these cack-handed attempts to portray a happy, loving family?

by worriedmum 06.06.16 15:57

If the 'last photo' had been published immediately after Madeleine's disappearance, there should have still been guests at the Ocean Club who would be able to say 'I saw that little girl having her photograph taken yesterday with her family'. Wouldn't they?

So why wait until weeks later?

by BarryTheHatchet 06.06.16 16:00

Quite. It takes all of thirty seconds to open the little door of the camera and take out the memory card. Why the delay?

by Roxyroo 06.06.16 23:17

Bayonne wrote:
Roxyroo wrote:I've just watched a YouTube video called "for Sean and Amelie McCann" on a channel called sharon1110rakker. Very interesting at 15secs if u can manage past the atrocious spelling and grammar! Unfortunately I can't post a link, maybe someone else can, pretty pls?
It may just be someone messing about but if it isn't then its proof she was photo shopped in. Amelie and Gerry are in exactly the same positions as the other "last photo". Strange indeed.

MOD NOTE:
Post merged with existing thread.
Hi Roxyroo,
Wowsers! Has anyone else seen this?? I'll try and post the link. But yes it appears to be the "last photo" but without MBM.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Its at 3.15 mins not 15 secs.

Thankyou! Yes, the last photo is the one I meant, got the time wrong

by Guest 07.06.16 8:03

Roxyroo wrote:
Bayonne wrote:
Roxyroo wrote:I've just watched a YouTube video called "for Sean and Amelie McCann" on a channel called sharon1110rakker. Very interesting at 15secs if u can manage past the atrocious spelling and grammar! Unfortunately I can't post a link, maybe someone else can, pretty pls?
It may just be someone messing about but if it isn't then its proof she was photo shopped in. Amelie and Gerry are in exactly the same positions as the other "last photo". Strange indeed.

MOD NOTE:
Post merged with existing thread.
Hi Roxyroo,
Wowsers! Has anyone else seen this?? I'll try and post the link. But yes it appears to be the "last photo" but without MBM.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Its at 3.15 mins not 15 secs.

Thankyou! Yes, the last photo is the one I meant, got the time wrong

What a load of c***

If you can't see the obvious paste line in the grass and the repeated bits of the stone wall you must be blind.

Someone is yanking chains.

by jeanmonroe 08.06.16 0:58

WHY would a PRO McCann supporter's video 'include' THAT 'shot' of GM and ONLY Amelie 'by the pool'? (3mins 15 secs)

That 'shot' certainly isn't 'helpful' to their 'cause' is it?

'NO' Madeleine!

by Guest 08.06.16 7:27

jeanmonroe wrote:WHY would a PRO McCann supporter's video 'include' THAT 'shot' of GM and ONLY Amelie ...

You tell me.

Are you disputing the fact that it has been badly photoshopped
to remove something from the picture?

by worriedmum 08.06.16 16:08

At the risk of over simplifying things, could the reason that the last photo took so long to be produced, be that it was because it was on the camera of SOMEONE IN ENGLAND ?

by BarryTheHatchet 08.06.16 18:07

Well, the McCanns do have a tame video producer and also a tame Deviant Artist on the team, both of whom would be perfectly capable of changing EXIF data.

by justiceformaddie 22.09.16 1:43

It's late and I've been looking at the "last photo" and the tennis balls photo for over an hour now and I still can't figure out what the hell is wrong with these pictures.

I'm a rotten , wannabe photographer who is possibly one step above the rank amateur holiday snapper but even so let's just look at those two pictures (apologies for my inability to post them side by side for analysis ) -

The last photo is weird in its composition - Gerry looks like a rabbit in headlights, Amelie is almost bored and is occupied by something in the pool (her feet ?) and Maddie is totally distracted by something that is out of shot.

1. Where is Sean ?
2. Gerry's left arm - what is (not) going on ? Why no connection to/with Amelie ? There are many family pics of Gerry with the kids where the warmth and affection for all the kids comes through - but not here.
3. Look at the rims of the sun hats of the kids and then look at the rims of Gerry's spectacles. IMO , his specs are in sharper focus and yet further away from the camera.
4. The camera of this type, again IMO, should have everything in focus : it's what cheap cameras do and what makes them foolproof and appealing.
5. The picture just looks wrong , it's not a family shot (no Sean) : so why take it ? Two of the three subjects aren't even looking at the camera.
If I'd taken that pic I would have tried again and quite likely deleted the pic in question because keeping it is pointless IMO , it's so poor.

6. IMO that "last picture" has clearly been cropped (sorry for stating the obvious) - where are all the other people who must have surely been by the pool that day - it's a warm day , where is the sense of fun that that picture should convey. It's totally absent.
7. The balance of the picture is wrong - who takes a picture of dad who clearly is not interacting with the kids in any way , and where the kids are not interacting with dad. Come on Gerry ! Smile ! Wrap an arm around your two daughters - and kids, look at the camera.

But no , none of that.

Finally that tennis court pic - I'm not approaching my very amateur analysis of the photos from a perspective or whether they have or have not been "shopped". I look at them and ask myself , do they look natural , is it what I'm trying to convey by way of a fun family holiday in the sun.
The tennis court pic has always struck me as ghoulish. My reaction was always that Maddie's head does not sit properly / naturally on that body. IMO , Maddie's head should be turned away to her left as though looking at right angles to the camera. It simply does not look natural, there is no joy , there is no context. It looks plain wrong.

Clearly the pictures fulfil a purpose IMO, rather than represent a snapshot of family fun.

I'm going to bed now.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.09.16 7:40

justiceformaddie wrote:It's late and I've been looking at the "last photo" and the tennis balls photo for over an hour now and I still can't figure out what the hell is wrong with these pictures.

I'm a rotten , wannabe photographer who is possibly one step above the rank amateur holiday snapper but even so let's just look at those two pictures (apologies for my inability to post them side by side for analysis ) -

The last photo is weird in its composition - Gerry looks like a rabbit in headlights, Amelie is almost bored and is occupied by something in the pool (her feet ?) and Maddie is totally distracted by something that is out of shot.

1. Where is Sean ?
2. Gerry's left arm - what is (not) going on ? Why no connection to/with Amelie ? There are many family pics of Gerry with the kids where the warmth and affection for all the kids comes through - but not here.
3. Look at the rims of the sun hats of the kids and then look at the rims of Gerry's spectacles. IMO , his specs are in sharper focus and yet further away from the camera.
4. The camera of this type, again IMO, should have everything in focus : it's what cheap cameras do and what makes them foolproof and appealing.
5. The picture just looks wrong , it's not a family shot (no Sean) : so why take it ? Two of the three subjects aren't even looking at the camera.
If I'd taken that pic I would have tried again and quite likely deleted the pic in question because keeping it is pointless IMO , it's so poor.

6. IMO that "last picture" has clearly been cropped (sorry for stating the obvious) - where are all the other people who must have surely been by the pool that day - it's a warm day , where is the sense of fun that that picture should convey. It's totally absent.
7. The balance of the picture is wrong - who takes a picture of dad who clearly is not interacting with the kids in any way , and where the kids are not interacting with dad. Come on Gerry ! Smile ! Wrap an arm around your two daughters - and kids, look at the camera.

But no , none of that.

REPLY: It must be clearly said that many experts have pronounced the Last Photo genuine in every respect; moreover there is strong evidence that it was taken on Sunday 29th, not May 3rd. These points can be checked on our two long 'Last Photo' threads here and also in PeterMac's e-book, Chapter 15, which I think is on the forum somewhere.

Most of the points you make are simply your personal impressions of what you see, and most are capable of a perfectly rational explanation.

The photo is not 'weird' in its composition. It is simply a record of what each of the three was doing at that instant in time. There is no reason to disbelieve Kate McCann's account that Sean was with her when she took the photo.

Please have a good look at all the valuable research and discussion on the forum about the Last Photo before commenting again on it.

Finally that tennis court pic - I'm not approaching my very amateur analysis of the photos from a perspective or whether they have or have not been "shopped". I look at them and ask myself , do they look natural , is it what I'm trying to convey by way of a fun family holiday in the sun.
The tennis court pic has always struck me as ghoulish. My reaction was always that Maddie's head does not sit properly / naturally on that body. IMO , Maddie's head should be turned away to her left as though looking at right angles to the camera. It simply does not look natural, there is no joy , there is no context. It looks plain wrong.

REPLY: On this occasion I am entirely with you. There are multiple problems with the Tennis Balls photo, including the point you mention about Madeleine's head. A number of people, with good reason IMO, have speculated as to whether Madeleine's head has been shopped onto another girls' body. In this respect, opinion on this forum is divided; others maintain the photo is genuine. The fact that two different people claim to have taken this photo AND on two different days are further good reasons for questioning the provenance of this photo. I think HideHo has made a good, short video on this photo.

Clearly the pictures fulfil a purpose IMO, rather than represent a snapshot of family fun.

REPLY: Yes, both pictures have featured hugely in the McCanns' controversial accounts of that week.

by Guest 22.09.16 8:12

I totally agree with Tony's comments about the Last Photo.

There are lots of threads about it and it's been kicked from pillar to post.

The only thing dodgy about it is the alleged date.

I disagree with Tony about the tennis ball photo - I think that's OK as well - the mystery is who took it and (again) when.

by Roxyroo 22.09.16 8:27

BlueBag wrote:I totally agree with Tony's comments about the Last Photo.

There are lots of threads about it and it's been kicked from pillar to post.

The only thing dodgy about it is the alleged date.

I disagree with Tony about the tennis ball photo - I think that's OK as well - the mystery is who took it and (again) when.

I agree about the tennis photo being non photoshopped, yes her head is a weird angle but that's because she's trying to hold the balls under her chin thus shortening her neck. The only thing that is strange is she looks older than in the last photo. And as discussed here they aren't the right shoes for tennis, if someone did run back for a camera why didn't they pick up her trainers too? My four year old had socks on under sandals the other day, as it was too cold to go without but I want him to get the wear out of them as they.ll be too small by next summer!

by **Tony Bennett** 17.01.20 17:24

aiyoyo wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:
tigger wrote:Came across this in another unrelated topic:

Woolfall

juliet on Mon Sep 12, 2011 10:32 pm

Did KM say anything in the book about that session with Alex Woolfall, the PR man from PR firm Bell Pottinger, who flew to PdL soon after the little girl's disappearance?

He had some involved story about looking through KM's digital camera pics, painful though that was, and releasing pictures to the press.

It has never been clear what pictures he was on about...

Strangely, the top firm of Bell Pottinger had a team already in PdL when Maddeleine disappeared, as some sort of "holding exercise". That has never been explained...the tiny unfashionable resort, off season, such a focus for Sir Tim . unquote

It must be time, surely, for all the PR individuals/firms involved with in the early PDL days in particular to be questioned about what exactly they were doing. These people who claim they were helping the campaign to find this child in reality have only added to the obfuscation surrounding this case while doing nothing to advance the search in any meaningful way, if not actually hampering the investigation. The likes of Woolfall should not have been anywhere near the McCs camera or memory card, tampering with evidence during the early and very live phase of this investigation. There should be no question about the authenticity of 'the last photo', so crucial in establishing the child's whereabouts at a given time on that date. If the McCs are innocent of involvement and their search is genuine, can they not see that all these highly paid meddlers have achieved is extending what is claimed to be the continuing agony of not knowing, and lining their own pockets into the bargain.
Who can enlighten when AW did that?

Was it pre or post the *last photo* release?

This thread re Alex Woolfall is very interesting. I have revisited it as IMO it does have relevance to our recent discussions about both the Tennis Balls Photo and the Pyjamas Photo - indeed to ALL of the photographs we have, and don't have, in this case.

It maybe over 6 years since this thread last had a post, but here are a few of the more relevant ones upthread:

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

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.

____________________

Alex Woolfall 'knows': 'The Last Photo', and other photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz