'The Last Photo': The key questions

Sietah wrote:

secrets and lies wrote:I believe the child WAS there and died there but there is simply no reasonable logic as to why this photo editing is necessary.

Excactly what bothers me, why??

If we were as narcissistic we would think it was to occupie us

I suspect there weren't very many pictures of Madeleine available that they deemed good enough for their "campaign". So they simply manufactured them. I also believe she died there, probably on the night of May 3, but much earlier than 10pm. She may have died as a result of something happening earlier in the day, or on the day before, an injury, perhaps. In which case it would have been important to establish timelines where she appeared to be, where she might not have actually been.

Sorry but the three dots in the middle are not equidistant in any sense.
Who knows what could have been in the other photo's they may have been quite damming. Still don't understand why the police didn't grab the camera and a copy of any other photo's on the 3rd May 2007 or just after by putting a hold on them.

Canada,  your list of what you see says it all... You see the edge of the pool.  I don't. The sun is above GMC, about 5-8 degrees in front of him to be precise and at a slight angle. The plane and curvature of the lenses is slightly down (shadow narrows on to the cheeks) - the reflection on to these sunglasses (which are dark but not highly mirrored unlike the examples that have been posted) is of his and possibly the child's legs. In reflection the edge of the pool would look far whiter than the zuzpiciously flesh toned elements reflected in the lenses. The sun is ever so slightly to his right, which gives a steep drop off to shadow in the outer curve of the left lens. It is all about understanding the angle of principal light and the curve and position of the lenses. In that position, even rotated, the reflection of the edge of the pool could not even be possible in those lenses without being obscured by thereflection of legs not to mention that the edge of the pool, in reflection with the sun at that angle, would be behind the plane of the lenses since the centre position of the head and upper torso on both GMC and child is certainly level with the edge of the pool. 

The image is genuine, only its timing in dispute. There is no credible motive, nor evidence of it being fabricated. Either a 'we have no photos' or an edited exif datestamp would be equally useful. 

The details of the background match the location perfectly. The subjects of the image do not need to be in question to make a case out of genuine evidence. Too many people are too desperate to paint a grand conspiracy behind these events, when it is sufficient to see in evidence the conspiracy after the events.

Canada,

You`re not going to win this one. First, when you zoom in more than 200% the definition decreases with the ppi, thus what appeared to be a tiny spot before, will inevitably gain spherical`body`, such being the nature of pixellation.Second, when you have an extreme highlight reflecting on an extreme shadow, it will ALWAYS give off the appearance of being `lifted` above the surface plane of the shadow. It is predictable, it is expected, and a really good mathematician could tell you, by measuring the plane of the horizon, the tilt of Gerry`s head, and measuring the distances along the top rim, the bridge, and the inside extreme corners of the bottom rim (much fainter highlights, but still there) that the sun was slightly to Gerry`s front right and perhaps 5-8 degrees in front of him. The white marks on his glasses to which you refer are most 100% assuredly reflections of the sun`s glare overhead. They are also proof that the glasses were never rotated at 90 degrees, since (a) if they were water droplets they couldn`t have held position long enough to photograph and (b) the droplets would have been in shadow, and certainly not flaring with such intensity from an overhead sun

The photo is legit. Chasing it any other way is a red herring and a preposterous waste of time.Yes, we`re all entitled to opinions, but frankly what`s the point of chasing an opinion on something which is so completely and utterly provably and laughably wrong? Why are so many people intent on readingthe most insidious, complex and frankly impossible and improbably conspiracies into the most mundane evidence.

My understanding of the case is that the PJ appear to have an open and shut - but in the absence of a body it is damned hard to press for a felony charge, as it were. I don`t believe any of that has changed. It wouldn`t appear that this photograph is of major concern to them as a forgery.

dan55, trust me... if you take out the angles of incidence and could position the sun directly overhead and perhaps the same 5-8 degrees to the front and straighten Gerry`s head, those dots on the bridge move... they will be positioned as follows: one right in the middle of the bridge, the other two to equal distances on either side of the central dot. Why? Because the shape of the frames and the nature of the sun`s reflection is predictable and reproducible given the same circumstances. The dots, as they do on the upper rim and the outside corners of the inside lower rim, occur in places that are characteristic, predictable in their response to light dynamics - either shadow or highlight. These are key points in the curvature of the frames.

Sietah wrote:

Veritas wrote:Sorry,  but Canada12, you're running comedy hour on here. Your expertise in identifying detail in images is pitiful enough to negate your claims about photoshopping. Those very regular equidistant 'droplets of water' on the top and lower rims of the glasses are in fact mathematically preposterous in their precise placement and regularity to be 'splashes'. They are in fact nothing more exciting than the reflection of sunlight which, I'm guessing from r shadow placement was almost directly overhead and approx 5-8 degrees in front of GMC.

And what about the white spots on Gery's pants and Amelie's legs?

Well?

Veritas please actually read earlier posts it's a fake how can you explain the dark grey shadow on the chair behind Gerry, that is a straight line from a round edged shade that has rough branched edges yet the other chairs deeper underneath have only light shadows on them we don't know where the sun was exactly because the three people in it are inserts. The motive is to alter the timeline to confuse the public and police. It is not a matter of why bother it is a matter of that that photo and the heavily photoshopped photo of MM on  her own are making thousands of pounds for the Mccanns and are being used as a cover up! they are important and they are fake. They are now trying to say that the tennis photo was taken on the same day I think KM in her book say's it wasn't. It is physical proof that you are trying to trash by illogical arguments. ALL photo's are copies they are all the same if I copy a photo from my camera to my pc and then one to the laptop and sent them both to you you could not tell one from the other for they are all copies nobody sees the original for it is in the card and can't be seen by the human eye you are still living in the days of negatives. IT's digital and even the picture in the camera is an interpolation of a load of electronic dots or markers you do not need originals to prove that digital photo's are fake use your brain and your eyes. We know the sun was high but as to it's exact location that's pure speculation as you can't be sure exactly what they have done to the photo. The big word in your last post is IF. see in the photo by sietah that the shadow is round from the canopy well in the other fake photo it  is straight!  Not possible! no way! no how!

Sietah,

What about the spots?

Some are consistent with water droplets from the pool. Some are consistent with dust or droplets on the lens of the camera. Some could be consistent with dust on the CCD which in a cheap digital camera would not be unexpected. This is a family photograph. It is not a high definition, infallible capture of a moment in time which can be infinitely zoomed into, rotated through 360 degrees, extrapolated into three dee, or any other such thing. Make sure your expectation of perfection in the image isn`t leading you down a garden path to try to find exotic explanations for perfectly mundane details. There are various examples throughout the image of similar artifacts which would be typical, as I said, of a cheap digital camera for family holidays. This wasnot a state of the art Nikon DSLR.I personally have a similar pair of shorts which I use for swimming every holiday, which have some very small splash marks from bleach. The possibilities are various. But when you eliminate the mythology of how and why the image would be faked (it isn`t faked, it is real, albeit with a possibly tampered EXIF data set) you`re left with a sad reminder of the case in point, in glorious technicolour, and an image that can`t tell you much else other than two children appeared to be having fun, and their father appears to be a miserable sod.There is nothing of the crime or deception inherently in the image.It is what it is.

Veritas wrote:Sietah,

What about the spots?

Some are consistent with water droplets from the pool. Some are consistent with dust or droplets on the lens of the camera. Some could be consistent with dust on the CCD which in a cheap digital camera would not be unexpected.

So it is a coinsedense that the white spots are only on Gerry and Amelie, and nowhere else.
Like when I spent last afternoon try to photoshop and could not get rid of some brown pixels, that later appeared to be coffespots on my monitor :-)

Sounds simple, I'm not convinced though.

Yep it is what it is a fake! why can't you answer the more provable points you just pick on the debateable ones. The photo of GM on her own by the pool is photoshopped but which came first? was GM's arm taken out of that one or put into another one with the rest. It's supposed to be an extract but the wall is lower. You really cannot be serious, are you trying to say that you know that photo has not been tampered with even though it has photoshop editing evidence in the exif file! DOH!

Dan, I`ve read all the earlier comments. I don`t agree with your conclusioNS. The shadow you reference is not remotely out of place in the scene. It is neither a perfect straight line, nor is it inconsisten with light dynamics in a real three dimensional world. You guys have been watching too much CSI or something, but shadows do not form perfect opposites of the objects in question, not least beacause light, while emitting from dominant sources, is not observed uni-directionally. On a sunny day  the overhead sun will cast a lot of highlight and a lot of shadow, and some of it will be very conformitive to the cartoon image of a shadow and how it should fall. But there`s an awful lot of light dynamicto interfere with that too. Not least light passing through partially opaque fabrics, or light reflecting off any number of other objects.

I`m ashamed at the way your foregone conclusion about the participants in the picture being photoshopped fakes has, by your own admission, prejudicially tainted your reading of the shadows in rationalising the light dynamics going on in the picture. You`ve hamstrung your own investigation into the image with prejudice, and as such you`d be instantly ruled out of being any kind of valid investigator. You have no evidence at all to support the idea that the figures were photoshopped in, as evidenced by the fact that the fall of shadows throughout the image is not only in-keeping with the persons in the picture, but also allows us a fairly accurate prediction of where the position of the sun would be, which is equally in-keeping. Your imagination for how this image SHOULD look appears to be entirely two dimensional and based on light sources being singular and linear.

You mention the heavily photoshopped image of MMC on her own. That image has something this image doesn`t. It has a reason to be edited. The image, at face value, was intended to be memorable and the viewer not remotely distracted by unnecessary detail. The image manipulator did exactly what I would have done. The unwanted components were removed, elements of background were extended using the clone stamp tool, and the background had blur applied to make it secondary and visually draw focus to the child. Unless you can demonstrate that this image was presented as an organic snapshot original from the holiday which presents the PJ a convenient support of a spurious timeline, then I`ll wager that TM wouldn`t even bother to deny that the image is indeed modified and enhanced for purpose. I have no issue with that.

The rest of your argument kind of becomes reactionary, hysterical, illogical and/or self-defeating. No one disputes that the TM is not capitalising off the images. That`s a question of taste and decency, prima fascie. If indeed they know that she is dead and that can be proven, then it is also fraud. If they falsify the date an image was taken, that raises its own issue. But the image is not, repeat NOT, photoshopped. It is not fake. There is no evidence to support the claim that it is fake. And ruling out all objective analysis of the image on the basis that it is presumed entirely fake and thus no navigation points of authenticity can be created is, frankly, intellectual suicide.it is beyond illogical, and beyond plausibility.not least because, as I said, it is beyond necessary. If the purpose was to deceive authorities with a false timeline, they already got that sewn up with a concocted testimony, and fake sightings. The last thing a half clever criminal would do is to venture to get uncle Buck to cobble together a photoshopped image and then present it to the police departments which have access to incredible digital forensics, and get busted. You don`t depend on physical evidence if the story is a lie, because physical evidence can be pulled apart quickly. You depend on hearsay, on testimony, on the appeal to authority. It would not in a billion years make sense to fake this photograph over simply saying `no officer, we don`t have any photos this week... the camera ran out of battery.`

Dan, you should know better than anyone following this case, repeating a lie or a myth over and over again doesn`t make it any more true. The image isnot a fake.And you are dangerously misdirecting readers and pushing false conclusions. The fact that the EXIF data on the image states that Photoshop was used as an agent software in outputting the image to its current format DOES NOT equal proof that the image has been altered or edited in Photoshop.MOST uses of a digital photograph, except in submitting the memory card originals demanded by police, would involve some degree of post-processing our outputting via a third party tool, not least for the purposes of transcoding from one file format to another and/or adjusting size, resolution, perhaps for emailing to a third party. It just isn`t sound or credible to insist on assuming that Photoshop appearing as an agent application in EXIF data means anything other than that the image was opened and saved again using Photoshop. From a legal standpoint you cannot rule out based on EXIF alone, that the image wasn`t tampered, neither can you say it was.

I address this to Sietah also...



Lets just take a look where the logic and plausibility of your arguments fall down. You both insist that this image is faked. The subjects are all separate from each other, according to you, and separate from the background, and some of the background elements elements are separate from each other, but seemingly have been composited back into the background. OK.

Since there is no tonal discontinuity, no edge halos, no sizing inconsistensies or difference in pixel densities, whoever did this photographic fakery was utterly brilliant and left next to no trace. Do we agree on that?

So why on God`s green earth did this image manipulation genius leave behind such `obvious` indirect gaffes as to render the image totally fallible before a jury of rank amateurs and forum jockeys? White spots? That`s the genius`s downfall? He took out all the feathered edges, covered up all the seams, matched all the pixel densities and sizes, and left white dots? Was he Stevie Wonder? Did he get rushed at the last moment? It doesn`t make the sense God gave a mule. If making a new image, why matte in background images that didn`t need to be there? Why flirt with unfakeable shadow continuity? Why not present an old image from earlier in the week, with an altered EXIF creation date? And since EXIF`s are so easy to manipulate, why finish all that hard work, and leave the `Photoshop` reference in the EXIF? Oh... caught red handed... forgot to edit the signs that I`d edited the EXIF! Pull the other one.

The religious fervour in the defence of these photographs is as valid as the global warming one imo. 

Pronouncing the photographs as the true faith and non believers as heretics. 

Long, overlong  sermons appear from time to time to convert the heritics with a zeal worthy of a better cause. 

What  we never get is a detailed  pictorial  breakdown or explanation of eg. Amelie's missing arm. 

It appears to be an article of faith and perhaps we should be  grateful that this subject attracts so many and such well spoken experts. 

But just like  global warming  it's hard to make converts when they're up to their knees in snow.  


The basic premise here is at  fault:
It was not done by a photoshopping genius - that's why  we can see the mistakes
I don't think all the figures and objects have been pasted in, some, not all. 
There is evident manipulation of images in many photographs and just like the alerts of the dogs, they all relate to one subject - photographs of  Maddie and persons or objects around her, either added or cropped. 
So the picture below -  trick of the light? Someone lost  an arm or elbow? 
We're looking at a body of work,  the pool photo is only the tip  the iceberg  and to carry the climate theme on: 
The very iceberg which does not exist for the believers in Global Warming  'no  photoshopping'  and those who believe  will go to heaven, or even Rothley ........

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

canada12 wrote:One of my primary arguments that the pool photo has been photoshopped is the rotated image of the pool in Gerry's sunglasses. Nobody has been able to explain this to me yet. A lot of people have said, oh it must be the curvature of the sunglasses, or the polarisation of the lenses.

No. A thousand times no.
There is no way the image reflected in those sunglasses is the right way up.

If any Photoshop experts would care to tackle that, I'm all ears.

Thanks.

Edited to add and fix the link to the highest res copy of the photo we have available:

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

If the glasses were hanging off his shirt in the original pic, they'd be vertical. Would explain the pink bit in them.. Matches amalies hat. Can someone cut the glasses, hang them in his shirt and let us see if that was their original position? Why, though, this would be a need for photoshop beats me. Just what I think could be an explanation.

You can see photos of the small pool at PDL where "The Last Photo" was situated:

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

As you can see, it's quite small, and circular.
The two photos (one with Gerry, one without) are taken from two different angles, but the larger photo, without people, almost accurately depicts the background of "The Last Photo", given that loungers have been moved around, and it's a slightly different time of year.

One thing I noticed is that there's a small black and white depth marker embedded in the pool apron very close to the edge by the pool.

If you line up the photo with the family, with the photo without the family, and adjust the two so that the large tree trunk in the background is in exactly the same spot... and if you make allowances for the photo with the family being taken at a lower angle than the photo without the family (ie, the person taking the picture with the family was possibly either in the pool or sitting on the opposite side)...then you can see that the edge of the black and white depth marker falls almost exactly where the black and white artifact is seen behind Amelie.

However, if you look closely, you can see that the black and white marker in the picture with Amelie is reversed from the black and white marker in the picture without the family. That is to say, in the picture with Amelie, the black stripe is on the top, with the white underneath. And in the photo without the family, the black shadow stripe is correctly on the bottom, with the white on top. So what are we to conclude? Another attempt to fit artifacts in, so that it appears authentic?

This further convinces me "The Last Photo" is not genuine.

Please look at the picture Sietah has supplied further up on this thread, showing Gerry, Amelie and Madeleine sitting around the pool. At first glance this appears to be the famous "Last Photo". But it isn't. It's the photo without anyone in it, that I mentioned above, which is to be found here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]last.html

And Gerry, Amelie and Madeleine have been photoshopped in, seemingly seamlessly, from "The Last Photo".
Can you tell the difference?

Also, some possible explanations as to why there would be mistakes in "The Final Photo", if it was done by a good Photoshopper? Well, consider the possible constraints under which the Photoshopper might have been working. A tight deadline, the need to come up with a photo that a) provides proof of four people being in a certain place at a certain time on a certain date and b) provides an attractive-looking picture which can be used for a wide campaign and released to the press.

Why would we assume that he or she had the time to ensure everything was absolutely perfect? If there was a frantic deadline, and if the picture had to be ready to be taken back to PDL in person by Gerry, I can imagine a scenario whereby the Photoshopper said, it's not perfect, I still have to tidy some things up, and I still need to work on the replacement reflection I've shopped into the lenses of the sunglasses...

And I can imagine the answer being, we're out of time, it needs to be ready to go now. Don't worry about the small things. They won't be noticed by most people and if there are any pesky Photoshop experts who get hold of it, we can jump in and say we're professionals and tell them they're not seeing what they're seeing.

As for the photo not standing up to scrutiny by the police...yes, that's very true. It likely wouldn't stand up to scrutiny at all. And I think TM may have been aware of that - but they were also counting on never being brought to trial, and therefore this "Last Photo" would never have to be presented in court to be defended. And if, by some remote chance it ever was, the Defense could always argue that it was always intended ONLY as a PR exercise, for the purposes of promoting the fund. Unethical, perhaps. But not interfering with the investigation, no, not at all.

Tigger, there isn't a missing arm. It, like the rest of the objects in the image, is a three dee object in a three dee world, subject to the perspective of the point of observation, captured in a brief fluid moment by a lens which produces a two dee rendering of a three dee scene and which introduces limiting dynamics based on its own depth of focus and curvature. You do know that all those tourist snaps which show happy holidaymakers holding the Eiffel Tower on the palm of their hand are just optical illusions, right? They're not photoshopped. 

Your rhetoric of hysterical deniers is oddly telling. Your camp are very noted for their leaps of logic, dogged adherence to vivid imagination, utter lack of credibility, and flagrant ignorance of evidence over a pre-formed narrative. I'll repeat the same thing I've been saying - sanely and soberly - throughout... This isn't a denial of guilt. It isn't some red herring to cast you off the trail. This is Occam's Razor. Make the least assumptions unless the evidence supports it... If the photograph was faked it would fulfil no purpose that could not be fulfilled more easily by leaving the world with no photo atall. They didn't need it, it doesn't define or hinge a single aspect of the case, it increases the risk tenfold for no discernible benefit.

Briohazard wrote:If the glasses were hanging off his shirt in the original pic, they'd be vertical. Would explain the pink bit in them.. Matches amalies hat. Can someone cut the glasses, hang them in his shirt and let us see if that was their original position? Why, though, this would be a need for photoshop beats me. Just what I think could be an explanation.

Someone on one of the other threads did that - I can't find it now - but they hung the sunglasses off Gerry's neckline and it seemed to be a perfect reflection.

Need for photoshop: the original reflection showed something other than what the photographer wanted to show?

Veritas. Yes. Yes. Yes. 

You are absolutely correct and far more determined than me. I have given up in resigned disgust. It's the blind leading the blind, pun intended. They will not listen because it does not fit the preconceived notion of a complex conspiracy that they have vested in. 

So, back to the exif. I hadn't thought about how easy it is to edit, but of course you are right. On the other hand, I doubt that Gerry or Kate or any of the doctors are even very aware of exif. They might be aware that there is meta data but not the extent of it. That's why I think that it might be significant, even though it's not proof by any means. 


The photoshop entries only 'prove' that it was opened and resaved in photoshop for whatever purpose e.g. 72dpi for screen, a lower res, smaller file for emailing etc. It does not prove manipulation of the image and I still think it's genuine. 


The reflection might be of a blue dress or blue jeans. Half the little kids were wearing pink. It could be of anything.

Canada, you're at it again. You're trying to impose a two dee rendering onto a three dee physical world. Yes, if you line up two different images and scale and tweak and chop and morph you can nearly create a perfect image.  But you can't make a perfect image. Not without serious skill. And even then, it won't be able to fool experts. Because it will always look like two dee images overlapping each other independently with no organic interaction between the planes. I can tell immediately that the image you chose to show in order to prove that it could be done is fake.  The 'original' image not so. But you want it to be fake, you need it to be fake, so all narrative no matter how contradictory or ridiculous must be made to fit. 
The image shows no sign of digital compositing. That's hard to do. So we would assume in your narrative that we're looking for some superbly skilled artist who probably works in Hollywood. But you say 'no!' because a perfect artist with such skill is inconvenient to the fact that you need to interpret inconsequential artifacts in the image as hallmarks of fakery. So now we need a perfect artist (in order to leave no signs of compositing) who forgot a bit, or ran out of time and said 'ahh, eff it, who' ll know? ' 
So now we need a not professional but bloody extraordinarily good compositor who was sloppy and careless. Ah he must have been rushed. What?  By20 minutes? Hours compositing and then the people who controlled the timeline and the release of the photograph said 'you' re out of time... Don't care if you've finished... It will do... It doesn't need to be convincing. ' 

You' re barking up the wrong tree. Or just barking. Like a religious nut, while others ask for rationality and evidence, you're screaming your faith while wearing no clothes. The image is not fake.

Veritas wrote:The image is genuine, only its timing in dispute. There is no credible motive, nor evidence of it being fabricated. Either a 'we have no photos' or an edited exif datestamp would be equally useful. 

If the image is genuine, Veritas, but its timing is in dispute, when do you suppose the photo was taken? If it was taken the previous year, we'd need to see proof that the McCanns had visited PDL the previous year. Do we have any proof of that?

Or are you saying that the photo was taken on a day other than May 3, but during the same visit? If that's the case, then why would they lie about it being taken on May 3? Why not just be honest, and say it was taken on May 2, or May 1?

Veritas wrote:Canada, you're at it again. You're trying to impose a two dee rendering onto a three dee physical world. Yes, if you line up two different images and scale and tweak and chop and morph you can nearly create a perfect image.  But you can't make a perfect image. Not without serious skill. And even then, it won't be able to fool experts. Because it will always look like two dee images overlapping each other independently with no organic interaction between the planes. I can tell immediately that the image you chose to show in order to prove that it could be done is fake.  The 'original' image not so. But you want it to be fake, you need it to be fake, so all narrative no matter how contradictory or ridiculous must be made to fit. 
The image shows no sign of digital compositing. That's hard to do. So we would assume in your narrative that we're looking for some superbly skilled artist who probably works in Hollywood. But you say 'no!' because a perfect artist with such skill is inconvenient to the fact that you need to interpret inconsequential artifacts in the image as hallmarks of fakery. So now we need a perfect artist (in order to leave no signs of compositing) who forgot a bit, or ran out of time and said 'ahh, eff it, who' ll know? ' 
So now we need a not professional but bloody extraordinarily good compositor who was sloppy and careless. Ah he must have been rushed. What?  By20 minutes? Hours compositing and then the people who controlled the timeline and the release of the photograph said 'you' re out of time... Don't care if you've finished... It will do... It doesn't need to be convincing. ' 

You' re barking up the wrong tree. Or just barking. Like a religious nut, while others ask for rationality and evidence, you're screaming your faith while wearing no clothes. The image is not fake.

Hey Veritas, I'm not barking anything (and I particulary take exception to being told I'm "just barking" or a religious nut. There's no need to be insulting. I'm proposing some ideas. And you seem to be particularly bothered by these ideas. I ask again - can you show me an unphotoshopped picture of sunglasses which reflect what's in front of them at 90 degrees? If you can show me that, I would be more inclined to respect your position.

Thank you.

Canada,  the photoshopped rotated glasses were not, bloody not, the perfect reflection. They were what the cloud-gazers wanted to see... 'ah yes... That proves it'  But in real world terms those glasses would never have reflected what the detractors need it to. Why? Because it is a three dee object subject to three dee dynamics. If hung vertically those glasses would never reflect pool, more pool and pool edge. They'd reflect sky or a fenceline, and knees.

Veritas wrote:Canada,  the photoshopped rotated glasses were not, bloody not, the perfect reflection. They were what the cloud-gazers wanted to see... 'ah yes... That proves it'  But in real world terms those glasses would never have reflected what the detractors need it to. Why? Because it is a three dee object subject to three dee dynamics. If hung vertically those glasses would never reflect pool, more pool and pool edge. They'd reflect sky or a fenceline, and knees.

How can you say that with any degree of knowledge? Were you there?

I would suggest those arguing here leave it now, you have made your points, you are obviously not going to agree.