The Last Photo (again)

ann_chovey wrote:

Angelina wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

ann_chovey wrote:

So am I right in thinking that the time and date had never been set on this 5 year old camera. If not why not, someone not very techy?

Mines like that - As I don't use it very often, I take out the batteries (Else they leak).

Although the Camera will hold Date/Time for a short while (Not sure exactly how long) without Batteries, eventually it'll "forget".

And I really can't be bothered setting it again when I do insert Batteries!

Same here. If not setting the date is a crime then God help us.

Ah, thanks for that, I never knew. I use both my cameras nearly every day so never take out the batteries.

Obviously if you use something regularly then it's easy to think that's what everyone else does. I know how to set the date but just don't always get round to it

I'm the same with my mobile phone, switch it on about once a month just to keep the connection. I only use it in emergencies, other than that it's a landline or email. Obviously I'm not keeping up with the times

ann_chovey wrote:

"Kate took the photo of Madeleine at 2.29pm on May 3 - Mrs McCann's camera clock is one hour out so the display reads 1.29pm. Less than eight hours later, before 10pm that night, Madeleine disappeared."

presumably the date was correct.

the Olympus on the other hand shows .......On checking the camera I found that the time and date was not set on the camera and it was recording the time and date as 0000 hours on 01/01/02.

So am I right in thinking that the time and date had never been set on this 5 year old camera. If not why not, someone not very techy?

I seldom set mine

I think it is more than evident now, that if such tight analysis was done of a camera which is not the McCanns, then you can bet your life the same was done on the McCanns camera too.
The fact that we've seen the 'relatively uncontroversial' pictures made public, I think you can also bet your life the the controversial stuff has been retained.
This is why the McCs are getting their knickers in such a twist trying to get as many holiday people to send their pictures in to them direct, to see what is controversial in the backgrounds.
As Goncalo Amaral said, there is much more that he knows. I am prepared to wait, because I don't think it will be very long now.

pamalam wrote:Just my opinion, but I now Know that some images were deleted.
As proof we have.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VIDEO_MEMORY.htm


But I am still unconvinced that the images on
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm

is part of the deleted images.

Thanks pamalam for your info

Iris wrote:

ann_chovey wrote:

"Kate took the photo of Madeleine at 2.29pm on May 3 - Mrs McCann's camera clock is one hour out so the display reads 1.29pm. Less than eight hours later, before 10pm that night, Madeleine disappeared."

presumably the date was correct.

the Olympus on the other hand shows .......On checking the camera I found that the time and date was not set on the camera and it was recording the time and date as 0000 hours on 01/01/02.

So am I right in thinking that the time and date had never been set on this 5 year old camera. If not why not, someone not very techy?

I seldom set mine

I don't think I've ever set the time on mine.

C.Edwards wrote:Sorry guys, you have to be precise here. The McCanns had a Powershot A620, that report is talking about an Olympus C50. It's not the same camera and furthermore the "deleted photos" could be from ages ago, they stay on the card for a long, long, time (until the memory is properly formatted or overwritten by another picture).
There is categorically no evidence that suggests the McCanns deleted 150 pictures as tigger stated.

'Sorry' why do you feel that people have to be precise?
It is because you are aiming to confuse the subject and misdirect things.
The fact of the matter is that photos were deleted and photos were recovered.
Why this is the case is importa t and relevant. What sort of camera this occured on is not.

With regard to your other post, no i do not think your a double agent. I dont think your that smart as if you were you wouldnt be getting so fraught on a message forum. I have no clue what other forum you are talking about and I am far from interested in trawling the internet searching for 'cedwards'.
To go trawling is the type of thing people in PR companies are doing and they have special software ti easily collect all the information which comes back.

I do know your game, no it is not a threat and yes I could be wrong about you being one of these poor graduate plebs that are utilised to spread disinformation. You might be someone who actually knows the mccanns or someone associated. Although it was strange how you spoke about having a lunch break the other day and then went straight back to this forum to post nothin relevantly constructive to the discussion.

C.Edwards wrote:
Sorry guys, you have to be precise here.

Says who? We don't have to be anything here!

Its well documented that they deleted text messages from their phones. Why wouldn't they delete photos also?

Iris wrote:Its well documented that they deleted text messages from their phones. Why wouldn't they delete photos also?

Well, you have to find a way to spend time after your daughter goes missing...

.....anything that doesn't actually involve looking for her yourself.

Iris wrote:Its well documented that they deleted text messages from their phones. Why wouldn't they delete photos also?

My cameras memory card is full of deleted photos, it somebody ever would have a look. And at the holiday, I try to remove picks which are not good, less work to sort everything when I get home.
But I don't think mccanns took many photos all together. And at least the last photo is not in the published files, I have looked many times, can't find it.

When all's said and done it's perfectly normal procedure that the group's cameras would be amongst the first things that anyone investigating the disappearance of this child would check. One doesn't have to suspect the parents or anyone in the group - one would do it to ascertain whether for example, anyone suspicious i.e. a 'watcher' was caught in the background of any of the pics. The fact that most of the pics had been deleted leaving very few pics of the actual holiday would be suspicious if one ascertained that the deleted pics had not been transferred to a storage medium such as laptop or PC. Software exists that is designed for the average person to use in order to retrieve pics which have accidentally or intentionally been deleted from a digital camera's memory or flashcard - the make of camera or flashcard is immaterial - no expertise required. However we actually know that the cameras have even been subjected to professional forensic scrutiny - we probably do not know everything that was found. The dearth of pics from the happy holiday group that week is noticeable. The production of the 'last' happy family pic 3 weeks after the event is strange to say the least. The main search pic with the marked eye defect is stylized to the point of being almost useless, depicts a much younger child and was rather quickly available on the spot, for people who were in the habit of deleting the pics on their cameras regularly a remarkable achievement, unless they had the storage medium with them or access to stored pics on one of the picture sites on the web.

Loopdaloop wrote:

'Sorry' why do you feel that people have to be precise?
It is because you are aiming to confuse the subject and misdirect things.
The fact of the matter is that photos were deleted and photos were recovered.
Why this is the case is importa t and relevant. What sort of camera this occured on is not.

With regard to your other post, no i do not think your a double agent. I dont think your that smart as if you were you wouldnt be getting so fraught on a message forum. I have no clue what other forum you are talking about and I am far from interested in trawling the internet searching for 'cedwards'.
To go trawling is the type of thing people in PR companies are doing and they have special software ti easily collect all the information which comes back.

I do know your game, no it is not a threat and yes I could be wrong about you being one of these poor graduate plebs that are utilised to spread disinformation. You might be someone who actually knows the mccanns or someone associated. Although it was strange how you spoke about having a lunch break the other day and then went straight back to this forum to post nothin relevantly constructive to the discussion.

The only sane response to that rant is You carry on believing that if it keeps you happy. I do like the irony of you not searching through the internet looking for the other forum then referring to a post I made on it though... ;-)

AnnaEsse wrote:C.Edwards wrote:
Sorry guys, you have to be precise here.

Says who? We don't have to be anything here!

Yes, of course. Silly me. Don't be precise guys, be vague and make false and unsupported accusations about anyone connected with the McCann case. That's far more likely to win over the hearts and minds of anyone new or undecided stumbling into this (or any other) forum. We don't need supported facts and evidence, we need rash statements about 150 photos being deleted and then when that's proven wrong, we need to say it doesn't matter which camera it was anyway as someone, somewhere was bound to be deleting photos and therefore by implication the McCanns would have been too and therefore they're guilty as sin.

Is that *really* the way to go about this Anna? Or would you agree that actually referring to known evidence is the way to go forward and by doing so it's likely to make the argument against the McCanns look much better thought out and not just ill-considered attacks because their eyes are too close together or something?

Iris wrote:Its well documented that they deleted text messages from their phones. Why wouldn't they delete photos also?

I have no doubt whatsoever that the McCanns have, at some stage, used the delete button on their camera. Happy now?

Where is the evidence that deleting text messages means they deleted photos though? You can't (reasonably) base an argument against the McCanns on "what they would have done" if there is no evidence of them doing that, surely? The argument on this thread, such as it is, is based on Tigger's assertion:

Brilliant post LdL! Woolfall - the very man who helped Kate sort out her photographs on the camera, ditching some 150 which were later retrieved by the PJ - only in black and white because they'd been deleted.

There is no evidence that Kate (or anyone) "ditched" 150 photos.
There is no evidence that the PJ recovered said photos from the McCann camera
Deleted photos do NOT turn black and white!

Tigger has misinterpreted the scanning/copying process of the perfectly normal photos in the files which has turned them into duotone black and white as being evidence of recovered deleted photos. Tigger is wrong. Then Tigger provided a link to back up his/her claims which referred to a different camera and a different number of photos as though that proved me wrong. I pointed out that the numbers didn't match and the camera wasn't the McCanns'. This has led to a smattering of "why should we be precise" and "we can assume that the McCanns' camera underwent the same process" posts. I've pointed out why it would be sensible to be precise and I agree it's very likely that the McCann camera would have been subjected to similar scrutiny, but there is no evidence of that, so there's (as yet) nothing to corroborate Tigger's claims. In which case they are unsupported allegations and shouldn't be bandied about as if they're true. At least one person jumped on the "fact" as though it was fact and before you know it, another vague statement has become a "fact" and anyone using it against someone who knows their facts would make that person look very silly very quickly. I prefer to have my arguments based on supported facts where possible.

Let's consider for a moment... what would the McCanns want to delete 150 (or any number) of photos for anyway? It's not like they'd have taken a series of snapshots of her dead body behind the sofa now, is it? What would they have to gain from deleting pictures? Especially if, as we suspect, they had something to do with the disappearance of their daughter anyway. That's an awfully high number of photos to be deleting from a camera anyway - I don't know about you but I tend to delete one or two dodgy ones which are blurred or have a finger in the shot but other than that I leave it for later on the PC. I really don't see where the gain would be for the McCanns in deleting pics unless, of course, they rather carelessly took loads of pictures on the Thursday and none of them had Madeleine in them? Would seem reckless behaviour in the circumstances though.

C.Edwards wrote:

Iris wrote:Its well documented that they deleted text messages from their phones. Why wouldn't they delete photos also?

I have no doubt whatsoever that the McCanns have, at some stage, used the delete button on their camera. Happy now?

Care to explain that last remark?

Iris wrote:

C.Edwards wrote:

Iris wrote:Its well documented that they deleted text messages from their phones. Why wouldn't they delete photos also?

I have no doubt whatsoever that the McCanns have, at some stage, used the delete button on their camera. Happy now?

Care to explain that last remark?

What's to explain? You appeared to be after a concession from me that the McCanns have deleted photos, whether it's documented or not. Apologies if I misread your intention.

C.Edwards wrote:

Iris wrote:

C.Edwards wrote:

Iris wrote:Its well documented that they deleted text messages from their phones. Why wouldn't they delete photos also?

I have no doubt whatsoever that the McCanns have, at some stage, used the delete button on their camera. Happy now?

Care to explain that last remark?

What's to explain? You appeared to be after a concession from me that the McCanns have deleted photos, whether it's documented or not. Apologies if I misread your intention.

Oh, appear. I thought we were being precise. I need no concessions or anything else from you. Precise enough now?

Iris wrote:

Oh, appear. I thought we were being precise. I need no concessions or anything else from you. Precise enough now?

Ah. You just want to argue semantics then? And yet I get accused of derailing topics and not being here to discuss the case... the irony is not lost on me.

Carry on, I'm sure that between you all you can come up with a few more unsupported facts and drum up some support to accept it as truth.

c Edwards...you know the facts do you?


You know just as much as anyone else about the last photo.


There's no FACT that the last photo is or isn't genuine apart from going what people can assume.


I assume by reading into this case that the LAST photo has been photoshopped..and I'm not going on facts I'm going on gut instinct .

The reason why the LAST photo is photoshopped is because I think Madeleine wasn't around on 3rd may to be in that LAST photo.


There are, as far as we know, NO pictures off the McCann family apart from the day they got there, after that NONE apart from the one someone else took off Madeleine at the tennis court and even that one was probably NOT taken on the Thursday .



What a coincidence that a picture taken off Madeleine just happened to be the LAST picture taken before she was 'abducted'.


And don't say it was because they were in the creche all the time....I don't buy that as being for lack off pictures....pictures off the rest off the tapas on their balconies...plenty off time to take pictures and as Gerry McCann has stated....he loved taking pictures off Madeleine ...lots off pics off her at home and even in Donegal...there are pictures ...

C.Edwards wrote:

Iris wrote:

Oh, appear. I thought we were being precise. I need no concessions or anything else from you. Precise enough now?

Ah. You just want to argue semantics then? And yet I get accused of derailing topics and not being here to discuss the case... the irony is not lost on me.

Carry on, I'm sure that between you all you can come up with a few more unsupported facts and drum up some support to accept it as truth.

Another unsubstantiated "fact". Why don't you just give up now?

C.Edwards wrote:

Iris wrote:

Oh, appear. I thought we were being precise. I need no concessions or anything else from you. Precise enough now?

Ah. You just want to argue semantics then? And yet I get accused of derailing topics and not being here to discuss the case... the irony is not lost on me.

Carry on, I'm sure that between you all you can come up with a few more unsupported facts and drum up some support to accept it as truth.

I'm really grateful to you. So don't take on so.
I read the PJ reports years ago. At that time it wasn't clear that the letter from the Hampshire constabulary wasn't about cameras belonging to the McCanns.
But I was impressed by the extensive work done.

Now we find thanks to your persistent questions that there must be an equally if not more exhaustive analysis of the McCanns' cameras in the files.
Which have been held back by the PJ together with creche and telephone records. Significant in itself since the affair is shelved, not closed.

I'm really not bothered about proving photoshopping to you or anyone else really. The photographs have masses of mistakes all over them, like big dirty fingerprints.

People sing because they think they can.
People paint because they think they can.
People use photoshop because they think they can.

Not always the case I find.

Iris wrote:

C.Edwards wrote:

Iris wrote:

Oh, appear. I thought we were being precise. I need no concessions or anything else from you. Precise enough now?

Ah. You just want to argue semantics then? And yet I get accused of derailing topics and not being here to discuss the case... the irony is not lost on me.

Carry on, I'm sure that between you all you can come up with a few more unsupported facts and drum up some support to accept it as truth.

Another unsubstantiated "fact". Why don't you just give up now?

O come on Iris, he knows really long words. Perhaps even a post-graduate! I've got my dictionary at the ready....

I know one fact and that's the fact by Mr Lowe...'If the dogs detected a Dead Madeleine, then that IS a FACT'.


Would you care to comment on that FACT mr Edwards?


After all, that's your next stage isn't it...the dogs.

tigger wrote:

Iris wrote:

C.Edwards wrote:

Iris wrote:

Oh, appear. I thought we were being precise. I need no concessions or anything else from you. Precise enough now?

Ah. You just want to argue semantics then? And yet I get accused of derailing topics and not being here to discuss the case... the irony is not lost on me.

Carry on, I'm sure that between you all you can come up with a few more unsupported facts and drum up some support to accept it as truth.

Another unsubstantiated "fact". Why don't you just give up now?

O come on Iris, he knows really long words. Perhaps even a post-graduate! I've got my dictionary at the ready....

He might or might not be a post-graduate Tigger, but he clearly fancies himself as a mind reader as well as a Photoshop expert.