TheAuthor – The Last Photo

Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:55pm

Post subject: theAuthor:



For reasons that he does not fully understand, the author’s threads seem to attract heavy troll attack. Should the reader be so generously disposed as to find it worthwhile, a short comment or “bump” would be appreciated.

This thread continues from the author’s thread, ‘Faked Abduction! ‘ A thread they won’t let you read’ (the original thread was pulled).

Which itself continued from the author’s ‘Dark Deeds on a Dark Night’ thread, for which the link is:
(now pulled)

‘Dark Deeds on a Dark Night expanded on themes in the author’s ‘The Great Houdini Reveals All’, link: t=5416&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45
(now pulled)

The intellectual precursor, however, was the author’s ‘Madeleine ‘ Last Photo’…;start=0
(now pulled)

And Yet Another Post: Thursday 6 Sep 2007, Timed at True High Noon



It seems to the author that if the photograph of Madeleine, commonly known as ‘the last photo’, is a forgery, the implications for Dr Gerald and Kate McCann are devastating. Dr Kate McCann took the
photograph, and Dr Gerald McCann is one of its three subjects.

Because of its importance then, the author does not apologise for the rather lengthy nature of this post.

Those who persevere through to the end will find that the author provides them with a special treat!

One quick piece of advice, if clicking on the links doesn’t work, simply copy /paste into the browser.

Significance of the Last Photo

On 24 May 2007, the McCanns released the last photograph of Madeleine via the PA (Associated Press) news agency. It received wide coverage in the media.

In the Times of that day it was reported:

‘The picture was taken by Madeleine’s mother Kate, 38, on her own camera in the holiday resort of Praia da Luz, Portugal, where they were staying.’

‘The picture was taken at 2.29pm on May 3 – Mrs McCann’s camera clock is one hour out so the display reads 1.29pm.’

The Times accredits the photo to ‘Kate McCann /PA’


Significance of the Photo

If the photograph is genuine, it provides objective and independent witness that Madeleine Mccann was alive at 02.29 pm on 3 May 2007. The significance of this is huge; no other such evidence exists.

Before moving on, permit the author rapidly to dispatch to the trash-can two pieces of hear-say. First, the Sol article of 11 August, is oft quoted as stating that Madeleine was collected from the Creche at 6.00 pm on 3 May. In fact, that article says no such thing. Second, a report of a CCTV video showing Madeleine at a local restaurant at 6.30 pm 3 May was, and remains, pure fiction ‘ a total fabrication.

If, on the other hand, the claims of the photograph can be shown to be fraudulent, the Drs McCann find themselves at themselves at the difficult end of some very ‘unhelpful’ qustions. The most unhelpful of all may be phrased as follows:

‘Drs Gerald and Kate McCann, as you have conspired to place, in the public domain, fraudulent evidence that Madeleine was alive at 2.29 pm 3 May, is it not unreasonable for the reader to assume that she was already dead by that time?’

‘And does it not appear to follow that that you are involved, at least, in the concealment of her death?’

‘And, prima facie, does this not make you guilty of criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice – not to mention wasting Police time?’

Gentle reader, as you can see, many legal issues hang from the authenticity or otherwise of ‘the last photo’ and the claims that it makes.

Other things hang from it as well. Should the photo prove to be a fake, the PA being a long established, and highly regarded press agency would have to take a view on having its repution for accuracy and integrity traduced by a couple of fraudsters and swindlers. Action against the McCanns by the PA in the civil courts is certainly a possibility – even more so should the PA start getting stick the customers who came to the conclusion that they had paid good money for a pack of lies

And then there is Mr Rupert Murdoch to think about. Mr Murdoch, we are led to believe, does not relish either himself or his media interests being made a monkey of. If Mr Murdoch felt that this had been the
case, then Mr Murdoch could be very ‘unhelpful’: And Mr Murdoch might not be alone.

A great deal hangs on the claims of that photograph

The Published Photograph

Many papers published the photograph. In some instances it was heavily cropped (trimmed) to make Madeleine the focus. Such was the photo published by the Sun:…..42,00.html

Although the Times photograph is one of the least cropped, the Scotsman published an even more complete version.

But even the Scotsman does not compare with the compare with the Kataweb /Repubblica version:…..27_big.jpg

None of the above images bear any date stamp. Whether the original photograph circulated by the PA bore one is unclear; certainly, the author has not retrieved one. In any event, the presence of a date stamp (or the EXIF file that records such information) is immaterial. If the photo is fraudulent, supplying a false date /time is simply another problem for the forger to solve, and is easily done.

The Composition of the Photograph

The people. Left to right: Dr Gerald McCann, Amelie McCann, Madeleine McCann

A noticeable absentee from the picture is Amelie’s twin brother, Sean, who, we are informed is ‘away playing’, or in other acounts, the cause of Madeleine’s laughter

No other person or person’s are present, which as we shall see later may be significant.

Significant Features for Identifying the Location of the Photograph:

1. The pool
2. The two large sunbeds in the foreground
3. The parasol pole (between the two sunbeds to the left of Dr Gerald McCann
4. The tree
5. The sunbeds behind the tree
6. The white wall, forming the backdrop to the scene. Note the shrubs/climbers up against it.

The Location

Click on the following link:…..68×321.jpg

Here you will be able to see the feature described above: pool, sun
beds (though not the same colour), tree and wall

The sunbeds behind the tree in the ‘last photo’ belong to the second,
and larger pool, and (if you look closely) are more clearly shown in
the following link:…..41,00.html

The link that follows shows clearly, white sun beds and parasols by
the small pool (this relates to the parasol post in the ‘last photo’).…..ub_Eng.gif

With the location of the photograph established, let us return to the
aerial photograph that is the best of the three for our purposes, but
first to the last photo:

Link to the ‘last photo’ (Kataweb /Repubblica)…..27_big.jpg

Link to the aerial photo (Daily Mail)…..68×321.jpg

If you toggle between the ‘last photo’ and the aerial photo, it is
easy to locate the equivalent position of the three McCanns in the
aerial photo: on the pool rim, near to where the. They are at about
10.00 o’clock, close to the left of the three children sitting by the

Before moving on, may we just note, to avoid yet further confusion,
that the areas labelled tapas bars in the Gazetta Digital and the
Guardian photographs are no such thing: they are sun bathing areas.
Regardless of the conclusions we may reach about the ‘last photo’,
here at least we catch Photos peddling false information

Link to Gazeta Digital ‘Tapas Restaurant’ falsehood (you can actually
see the sun beds):…..ub_Eng.gif

Link to the Guardian ‘Tapas Bar’ falsehood:…..41,00.html

Analysing the ‘Last Photo’

The methodology that the forensic scientist adopts for artefacts such
as the last photo, is rather different to that employed when
examining, say, suspect bank notes. In that case, the suspect note can
be compared alongside a known, genuine bank note, and checked for

When the artefact is a photograph, such as this one, there is no
original with which to compare it. Thus, the approach, at least
initially, lies in examining it for inconsistencies, the which fall
into two main groups:

1. Inconsistencies between the photograph and the objective world that
it purports to record

2. Internal inconsistencies, within the photograph

In determining whether the ‘last photo’, and the claims made for it,
are fraudulent, both of the above are relevant.

In order to test for the above, the assumption is made, at least
initially, that the photograph is an honest document; that it was
taken as claimed at 02.29 pm (14.29 hrs) local time on 3 May 2007; and
that it has not been tampered with, subsequently, in order to deceive.

Before proceeding, let us note that the photograph is aligned
vertically to a high degree of accuracy. The figures, the tree, and
the parasol pole all indicate this.

Readers who wish to closely scrutinise the arguments that are
presented below, will find it helpful to print a copy of the last
photo, so as to have it to hand. Alternatively, opening the photo in a
new tab or window, so as to be able to toggle between photo and this
text may be useful. Either or both – it’s up to you. In any event the
link is:…..27_big.jpg

The author has placed the analysis of the photograph’s internal
consistencies in an appendix at the end of this post. He is able to
confirm that inconsistencies are identified. He has done this so as to
concentrate on the altogether more significant analysis that follows.

The Photograph and the Objective World

We will now examine the relationship between the photograph, and what
we know of the objective world that it purports to represent. As
stated, we will start with the supposition that the photograph is
genuine, and that it was taken, as claimed, at 02.29 pm (14.29 hrs) on
3 May 2007.

From what is presented to us, we know at least three things about the
objective world. First, we know the location, having established that
earlier in this post. Secondly, we know the time /date in the
objective world, that is to say 14.29 hrs. Thirdly, we know that the
sun was shining.

From the above, using an ephemeris (a set of astronomical tables) we
can calculate to a very high degree of accuracy two very useful pieces
of information:

1. The height of the sun in the sky, this is determined by what is
termed its altitude – the angle that a line from the sun to the
observer makes with a line from the observer to the horizon. At 14.29
hrs (02.29 pm) on 3 May 2007, Praia da Luz, although the sun is high
in the sky, it is far from vertical. In fact it is at an altitude of
65 degrees (to the nearest 0.5 of a degree).

2. The direction of the sun (its compass bearing, or ‘azimuth’ for the
technically minded). To the nearest 0.5 of a degree this is 214.5
degrees (E from true N), or, for readers who prefer compass bearings
to the West of true SW.

We will deal with the significance of each of these in turn.

But first allow the author to provide a link whereby the above
information may be verified – should the reader wish to do so. A free
ephemeris (astronomical table) site may be found at:

The online ephemeris takes a little getting used to, but, ultimately,
it is far quicker than the author’s old parchments and quill pen. But
as he has remarked before, it is not more accurate.

The Sun’s Height in relation to the Length of Shadow

The long shadow cast by Dr McCann’s chin requires the sun to be at the
high angle of about 80 degrees (we will demonstrate this later).

Thus, it impossible to reconcile the length of the shadow cast by Dr
McCann’s chin with the actual (and lower) sun altitude of 65 degrees,
as it was at 14.29 hrs, 3 May 2007.

Now, we are told that the camera clock time is one-hour slow,
reading13.29 hrs, but let us suppose that this was the actual time
that the photograph was taken. At 13.29 hrs, the sun’s attitude is
higher, at 68.5 degrees (again to the nearest 0.5 of a degree). The
sun’s angle is slightly better, but a long way short of the 80 degrees

In fact, nowhere on the earth at 14.29 hrs, 3 may 2007 did the sun
have an altitude of 80 degrees. Keeping to Praia da Luz’s line of
longitude, at that time, the sun’s greatest altitude (about 76
degrees) would have been found in the tropics, some 1500 miles (2400
km) to the south of Praia da Luz and at about latitude 16 North.

Determining the Angle of the Sun Required to Cast Dr McCann’s Head

A number of approaches may be used to crack this problem, ranging from
imaging software through to trigonometry. The accuracy of all of them,
however, depends on a single fact. How far does the tip of Dr McCann’s
chin protrude, horizontally, beyond his chest?

The method that the author has chosen for this post is determined by
his normal practice of only relying only on methods or facts that
readers can verify for themselves ‘ always assuming of course that
they are inclined to do so. It is accurate, and, what is more, has the
additional benefit of NOT resorting to trigonometry. provided that you
can measure accurately with a ruler; can divide one number by another,
and use a protractor to measure angles, you will have no difficulty
following the method.

Principle of the Method

Let us take another look at the last photo. Link:…..27_big.jpg

If only it were in profile, we could measure the angle that a ray of
light has to make, in order to cast the shadow.

But, we do have profile images of Dr McCann. Take for instance this


If the link does not open when clicked, you may have to copy /paste it
into your browser ‘ Getty links can be temperamental. Once done, those
with PCs may choose to take a better view, enlarge to 125 %, and press
F11. We will refer to this image as ‘the profile photo’.

If only we were able to map the shadow, from ‘the last photo’ onto
‘the profile photo’, all we would have to do is draw a line (‘the
altitude line’) from the lowest part of the shadow and so as just to
graze Dr McCann’s chin. The angle that the ‘altitude line’ makes with
the horizontal provides the altitude that the sun would have to reach
to cast such a shadow.

Having done this, we could then draw in a second ‘altitude’ line, this
time at a predetermined 65 degrees, to show where the true shadow
would have reached at 14.29 hrs, 3 May 2007.

The principle that lies behind the mapping is to determine the ratio
of (a) the length of ‘the head plus shadow’, to (b) the length of ‘the
head’. Once we have this ratio, we can position the length of the
shadow on any photograph of Dr McCann’s head.

Undertaking the analysis

You will need: a sharp pencil (or drawing pen), a ruler, and a
protractor (a half-round perspex /plastic thing for measuring angles –
you probably had to buy one for school and then hardly ever used it.

You will also need good quality prints of ‘the last photo’ and ‘the
profile photo’ ‘ one of each ‘ the best your printer will afford.
Although you may be tempted to do so, there is little advantage in
making huge blow-ups of the prints. This simply enlarges the noise
associated with the image edges, and doesn’t help with measurement.
And ‘yes’ you could use sharpening software (e.g. Adobe Photo Shop in
edit mode), but it’s best to keep things simple and under your own

1. Working as carefully as possible. Draw three horizontal lines on
the ‘last photo’:

‘ through the bottom centre of Dr McCann’s hairline on his forehead
(‘the hair line’)

‘ through the bottom centre of his chin (‘the horizontal chin line’),

‘ through the bottom centre of the chin shadow (‘the horizontal shadow

2. Carefully Measure and record the following distances between the

‘ The (vertical) distance between ‘the hair line’ and ‘the shadow’
line, and

‘ The (vertical) distance between ‘the hair line’ and the ‘chin line’

Do this at least twice and take the average.

3. Using a calculator, divide the distance given by ‘a’ above by the
distance given by ‘b’ above. Incidentally, if you don’t have a
calculator to hand, just enter the figures in the Google search bar.
Use the forward slash sign, /, for ‘divided by’, then click go. We
will call this number ‘the ratio’.

The author does not wish to influence your readings, but it is hardly
a secret that you will find ‘the ratio’ to be just over 2.

4. Take the ‘profile photograph’, and draw the following lines

‘ Horizontal line through the hairline

‘ Horizontal line through the lowest part of the chin

5. Measure the vertical distance between the two lines, and multiply
this by ‘the ratio’. For the profile photograph, this gives you the
vertical distance between the ‘hair line’ and the new ‘horizontal
shadow line’. You can now draw in this new ‘horizontal shadow line’,
parallel to the other two lines on the ‘profile’ photo. And, in doing
so, of course, you have just determined where the bottom of the shadow
in the last photo would be.

6. Finally, all we now have to do is to draw where a ray of light at
65 degrees to the horizontal, and just grazing Dr McCann’s chin, would
hit the front of his body.

To do this, you need to use your protractor. The protractor must be
used so that its straight edge is accurately horizontal and at the
bottom. Then, keeping the central ‘dot’ or ‘cross lines’ exactly at
the edge of Dr McCann’s chest, position the protractor so that
65-degree mark just grazes the chin. Check that the protractor is
horizontal, and recheck the 65-degree position. When you are quite
satisfied that you have positioned the protractor as accurately as
possible, mark the two ends of the protractor’s 0-180 degree base
line. Now, remove the protractor and draw in the line. Where the line
crosses Dr McCann’s chest indicates where the end of the shadow would
have been at 14.29 hrs on 3 May 2007.

Of course, one can also use the protractor to determine what the
actual altitude (angle) of the sun would have to have been to cast the
‘last photo shadow

Results and their Interpretation

Q. Do the lengths of the ‘last photo’ shadow and the true, ie
65-degree shadow reconcile?

A. No, gentle reader they do not.

Q. Is the last photo shadow longer?

A. Yes, gentle reader. Considerably.

Conclusion: the last Photo is a fraud. The shadows have been added by
means of an editing program

Q. But has the author selected a photo that is particularly
advantageous to the fraud theory?

A. No, gentle reader, he has not. Try these for size ‘ the author has:

1. Link:


2. Link:…..19712410E9

3. Link:…..EE0BFFB021

4. Link:…..3F3D4F587C

5. Link:…..768E90B52D

6. Link:…..52B95DF7E0

7. Link:…..070515.jpg

8. Link:…..Madrid.jpg

9. Link: (edit note: the original link provided here no longer

They are not all equally good for present purposes, but with
appropriate interpretation, all yield essentially the same result.

The Sun’s Direction in Relation to the Dr McCann

As demonstrated earlier, the location of ‘the last photo’ is known. We
also know that Dr Gerald McCann is facing almost directly into the
sun. Because at 2.14 pm 3 May, 2007 the sun is at 214.5 degrees (E of
true N), Dr McCann must be facing in that direction.

Comparing the photograph of the pool with the Google Map satellite
image of the complex, showing the pool allows the direction in which
Dr McCann is facing to be estimated.

Do not be misled by the fact that the Google image seems to show the
tree in a different position. This is because the satellite image
records the trees shadow. Because the colour of the tree’s foliage
matches the grass, it cannot be seen at the available resolution.

Once you have positioned the tree, it is a simple matter to work out
the broad direction in which Dr McCann faces, and to compare his with
the sun’s actual position.

Is it possible to reconcile this with the sun’s direction?

Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is ‘yes’.

Modus Operandi of the Forger

A Conundrum

Well it appears that we have a puzzle. We have false shadows that are:

1. Right for the sun’s direction (effectively its compass bearing), so
the alleged time is right, but

2. Wrong for the sun’s altitude, so the alleged time is wrong.

What can be the explanation?

An Earlier, ‘Doctored’ Photo?

How can these apparently contradictory facts be reconciled? We now
know that the photograph was not taken when it was claimed, could it
have been taken earlier? Initially, this appears to be the most likely
scenario, and is the one, which most sceptics have favoured. But is it

Photographs released to the press reveal that the McCann’s seem quite
competent photographers. Where possible, photographs such as the ‘last
photo’ are taken with the sun behind the photographer. It certainly
would be possible to do so here. Let us assume that he photograph is,
in a sense, genuine, but as it were ‘one that was prepared earlier’.

In this case, one would expect Dr Gerald McCann to be looking towards
the photographer, Dr Kate McCann, who would have her back to the sun,
ie Dr Gerald McCann would be looking towards the sun. The fact that Dr
McCann, (unusually for him) is wearing sunglasses reinforces this. But
if Dr McCann is looking into the sun, then we know that the photo
time, if not the date, would be about right. In which case the shadow
length would also be about right ‘ but of course, it’s wrong! So an
earlier but ‘doctored’ photo doesn’t fit comfortably with the facts:
not impossible, perhaps, but unlikely.

A Later ‘Doctored’ Photograph?

By later, of course, is meant, one taken after 3 May. Perhaps ‘later
in parts’ would be a more accurate description, as this would seem to
imply that an earlier image of Madeleine had been stitched in.

We cannot of course be absolutely certain how The Drs McCann concocted
the forgery, but the author supposes a scenario something like this:

1. After Madeleine’s death (some time early on 3 May, or possibly the
previous night) the Drs McCann discover, but do not release, a photo
of Madeleine that they intend to put to later use. This may well have
been taken at the pool.

2. They plan to complete the forgery by taking another ‘the base’
photograph at the pool, bearing the date stamp, 13.29 hrs, 3 May 2007,
but of course the actual date will be later, but before 24 May when
the forgery was released.

3. The camera time is set to 13.29 hrs 3 May 2007, but this is not
‘entered’. The McCann’s now have four plans: A, B, C, & D. They need a
flexible approach because of (at least) two very important criteria
that have to be met.

First, the chosen location on the pool rim must be available, ie not
occupied by anyone else Second there must be no other holiday-makers
or staff in the photo’s field of view. If left in, such person’s could
expose the forgery. True they could be edited out, but in order to
supply convincing background, yet another photo, without them, is
required. Everything, including the editing, gets more difficult. The
author supposes that the forgers have another solution in mind

The plans are as follows

A. Take the photo at 13.29 hrs at an appropriate position on the pool
rim (facing more-or-less south). The preset clock will be started, and
the photograph taken.

Excellent. The shadows and sun direction match the time

B. Take the photo one hour later at 14.29 hrs at an appropriate
position on the pool rim (facing more or less WSW). The preset camera
clock (now wrong at 13.29 hrs) will be started, and the photograph

Almost as good. The shadows and sun direction match the actual time of
14.29 hrs. The wrong camera time is easily explained away by the
camera clock being one hour out.

C. Take the photo at ANYTIME, but at the ‘A’ position i.e. facing more
or less south. The preset camera clock will be started at 13.29 hrs,
and the photograph taken.

Not so good. The apparent sun direction is right for 13.29 hrs (it
doesn’t matter that the real sun is elsewhere). However, the
photograph’s shadows will be wrong, and will have to be edited.

D. Take the photo at ANYTIME, but at the ‘B’ position on the pool rim,
i.e. more-or-less facing WSW. The preset camera clock (now wrong at
13.29 hrs) will be started, and the photograph taken.

Least good. The apparent sun direction is right for 14.29 hrs (it
doesn’t matter that the real sun is elsewhere), but the photograph’s
shadows are wrong, and will have to be edited. Also, The camera clock
is now one hour out, but as before this is easily explained

The choice fell to plan ‘D’. We are not privy to the precise reasons
why, and the author does not speculate further.

The Key to the Timing of the Photograph

It would appear that the hour slot somehow relates to the cr’che
mid-day break of 3 May, when the twins would be available for
photography. Regrettably, Madeleine, who was already dead did not
attend the cr’che that day, hence the need for the photograph proving
she is alive. The fake abduction which was staged between about 9.30
pm and 10 00 pm that day requires a ‘live’ Madeleine.

But why 13.29 hrs / 14.29 hrs? Discussion, such as there has been, has
concentrated on 14.29 hrs. The key to the whole mystery, however, is
13.29 hrs.

The author reveals ‘why’ gentles. And if you have got this far, you
have earned your treat!

Click on the following link:






Scroll down to 3 May 2007, and read across to the time of solar (or
true) noon.


Someone has used an almanac ‘ and not for the first time.

At solar noon, the sun is at its highest point in the sky ‘ and more significantly is due south. The exact position on the pool rim for plans ‘A’ and ‘C’ is easily located ‘ a small (even) toy compass would suffice for this.

The plan ‘B’ and ‘D’ position poses a slightly more difficult problem. One simple solution would be to visit the pool (say) the previous day, and identify or mark the spot on the rim where you face directly into the sun at 14.29 hrs. You could identify, or mark the ‘A’ and ‘C’ positions at the same time.

Had the author been the forger, he would have started the camera clock, let it run on for a couple of minutes so as to disguise the solar noon connection, and then taken the picture. He supposes that this was the original plan.

It seems likely, however, that things did not go entirely smoothly that day – we’re using plan ‘D’ don’t forget. Was that little detail forgotten? Maybe it was thought that by switching to using the 14.29 hrs time, the solar noon time wouldn’t be noticed. But it was: the author noticed it, and gentles he has pointed this out to the police.


The forging of the photograph and the staging of the fake abduction share a number of common features:

1. Both are fraudulent, one an artefact, the other an event
2. Both involve an illusion: there was no abduction ‘ and the sun Dr McCann looks towards is not there
3. They both involve access to an almanac or almanac-type information

The author concludes that it is highly likely that a single mind was behind both.

A Final Look at the Last Photo…..27_big.jpg

Of course, once you’ve proved the forgery, it’s difficult to understand how you were ever taken in by it. Do look at it for a moment or two.

It’s a most peculiar photo.

Madeleine is not just glancing away at the crucial moment. She has a fully formed laugh

It’s almost as if she is in another photo altogether.

And regrettably, that is the case. Madeleine was already long dead when her image was stitched into this forgery.

As ever, gentles, your shadowy correspondent, the author, leaves you to your thoughts.

He returns to where he abides -deep in the heart of Umbra

Yours ‘ author


The Internal Consistency of the Photograph with respect to the Shadows Cast

The Shadows Cast by Dr McCann’s Chin and Nose

Let us examine the shadow cast by Dr McCann’s chin. For this analysis, we must remember that we have established that the photograph is vertically framed. To avoid confusion, it is also important to remember that Dr McCann’s (say) right ear or right sun glass lens will appear to the observer to be on the left side, as seen in the photograph.

The key to analysing this is to draw (or imagine) a line that passing through the bottom centre of Dr McCann’s chin and the bottom centre of the chin’s shadow. Had the photograph been able to record it, this would have been revealed as the line taken by the ray of sunlight falling upon the tip of Dr McCann’s chin. We will call this the ‘chin line’.

We will now concentrate on Dr McCann’s shadow nose – about 1/3 of the way up the head shadow on the (observer’s) left hand side.

Consider a ray of light falling on the tip of Dr McCann’s nose, his actual nose that is, not the shadow nose. This ray of light will be parallel (to a very high degree of accuracy) to the ‘chin line’. So let us draw, or, if you prefer, imagine, this second, and parallel line it. We will call it the ‘nose line’, and we note that it almost coincides exactly with the chin line. Now, it follows that that the point of the shadow nose must lie somewhere along the line of the ‘nose line’. This is an inescapable result of a combination of geometry and the laws of physics.

And is the tip of the shadow nose along the ‘nose line’?

Gentle reader- it is not.

Consistency of the Chin and Nose Shadows ‘ Another Point of View

Perhaps the reader requires a little more evidence. It is clear from the shadow cast by Dr McCann’s head, that he is looking directly towards the sun. Let us qualify that – in fact it is ‘almost’ directly towards the sun.

Let us draw (or again, imagine) a vertical line passing through the bottom centre of Dr McCann’s actual chin. We will call this the ‘vertical chin line’

Were Dr McCann looking in the exact direction of the sun, the ‘vertical chin line’ would pass through the bottom centre of his shadow chin In fact, of course, it doesn’t. The shadow chin is to the (observer’s) right of the ‘vertical chin line’.

Instead of the sun’s rays hitting Dr McCann’s chin, as it were, square on, they must be very slightly angled from (the observer’s) left to right

Next, draw a vertical line through the tip of Dr McCann’s nose. Gentle reader ‘ you’re probably getting the hang of this by now – we’re going to call this the ‘vertical nose line’.

The consequence of the light entering the photograph from the (observer’s) left to right (however slight) is as follows. In the same way that the shadow chin point is to the (observer’s) right of the ‘vertical chin line’ so the shadow nose point must also be to the (observer’s) right of the ‘vertical nose line’.

And is it?

Gentle reader, it is not.

Appraisal of the above

To maintain our assumption that the photograph is an honest document, the only possibility seems to be that we have misidentified the nose shadow. In other words that the bulge in the shadow is cast by something other than Dr McCann’s nose.

But what object might that be? Once again, our starting point has to be the fact that the suns rays are slanting in to Dr McCann’s head very slightly from left to right. Consequently, only features on the left (as observed) side of Dr McCann’s face could cast such a shadow. We can identify two:

1. Dr McCann’s right (observer’s left) ear?

Is this possible? The answer is no. For the first time in this analysis we shall consider the sun’s altitude (elevation, or height in the sky) for the swelling to be the ear, the sun would have to be behind him (not only inconsistent with the chin shadow, but actually impossible at this time /date /location). Perhaps if we were
charitable, we might concede that a vertical sun might cast such a shadow, but again Portugal being outside the tropics, this is never possible, on any occasion, anywhere in Portugal.

2. Dr McCann’s sunglasses ‘ that is to say his right (the observer’s) left lens /frame?

Once again, the answer is no. There are several ways in which this can be demonstrated. The simplest is as follows. Were the shadow swelling caused by the (observer’s) left lens /frame, then the right lens/frame would cast a broadly symmetrical shadow, and there would be a swelling on the other side of the chin shadow as well.

Alternatively, we can return to the approach adopted at the beginning of this analysis. Here, we draw a line through the left-most point of the (observer’s) left lens /frame that is parallel to the ‘chin line’. The shadow lens /frame would have to be on this line. It is close, but not close enough.

But if that does not convince, all we have to do is to draw a second line. This time it goes through the right-most point of the (observer’s) right lens frame parallel to the chin line. If the swelling on the left were due the glasses, there would have to be an equivalent shadow along this line: there is not.

Other Internal Inconsistencies

Before concluding, we should just note that there are many other inconsistent shadows: Shadows where there ought not to be; shadows cast in the wrong direction; the absence of shadows where there ought to be shadows; not to mention shadows that are too dark or too light. The author, however will not burden the reader further in this regard.

Last edited by theAuthor on Sun Oct 07, 2007 7:49 pm; edited 2 times in total

23 Responses to “TheAuthor – The Last Photo”

  1. 1
    deeb Says:

    I’m rather confused by your analysis of the photo.
    I’m not convinced that you are looking at the right pool.

    There are three pools and 3 tennis courts (can be seen on Google maps)if we assume that this is the correct complex and location as there is also a large pool and 3 tennis courts at the aldeamento luz ocean club to the north of this site.

    In the photo Gerry, Amelie and Madeleine are sitting on a poolside (again which poolside)
    Behind them is a large tree and to the right of Gerry’s shoulder is a pole which I assume is part of one of those wooden canopies/shelters that can be seen at the edge of the larger sectagonal shaped pool (not that circular pool where you point out that the three children are sitting)

    If you follow the line of vision from the picture taker(i.e. Kate) to behind the subjects (i.e. Gerry and the children) a white wall with bouganvillea is clearly visible behind the tree,(this wall is opposite the tennis courts in the DM site picture)

    If they were sitting on the edge of the smaller pool it would be impossible to have all of those elements in the picture at once, (i.e., the wooden pole, the tree and the white wall. So where were they sitting when the picture was taken?

    If you haven’t got the subject’s location correct then surely all of your calcualtions regarding sun direction and length of shadows ect., will be incorrect also?.

    Reply: Please check your facts again. I think you have the wrong location. There are 2 tennis courts and 2 pools at the part of the Ocean Club resort where the McCanns stayed. See this image: The arrow on the image points to the direction the photograph was taken. You can see it is at the smaller circular kiddies pool. The tree is behind everyone and the wall with the bougainvillea is clearly visible.

  2. 2
    Marty Says:

    I remember your posts at the Mirror forum (and at 3A) very well. Its good research and analysis. After coming back to the subject after all this time, and re-looking at that pic. it appears to me that the sunglasses were added onto GMs face. To sort of hide him (if you know what I mean) The reason I say this is because I look at the angle of the frame edges against his ears, and the obvious vivid colouring of them. I may be totally wrong of course as I have not done any research, just looked at the pic. I found a video on Youtube, you might be aware of it. Its an excerpt of a documentary where the filmakers have put the digital photo into a programme and looked at its ‘coding’. The date of the photograph was showing up as May 5th which is obviously impossible. Unless someone has accessed the picture to change it of course! But could they (GM) have just changed it for the sunglasses and not for anything else? Your research is certainly persuasive, but why did he go to so much trouble to change it…no one, except us (the unbelievers) have questioned that last photo as proof of Madeleine being alive at that time… could he have predicted that the question would come up? If there are written records for the creche, why the need for a photo? (Is there no evidence of her presence on May 3rd?)
    I’m just in questioning mode after returning to this research after a long while.

    Site Admin: Welcome Marty. My book “Faked Abduction” looks at this in detail and I had used some software to check the quantization tables used to compress the image in order to check and see if it had been altered outside the camera. The software claims that the image data has indeed been altered. The black line behind Amelie is a mystery as there is no poolside feature to account for this object. Also, there is some evidence of the use of a brush tool in Photoshop in a small area between Gerry’s legs.

    The image is the only independent piece of evidence to show that Madeleine was alive in the afternoon of May 3. This is why they had to come up with something to bolster their feeble alibis for the afternoon of May 3. On May 24 when this was released, the McCanns had no idea who had been interviewed and who said what. This image was generated for that specific purpose alone. Had it been insignificant, it would have been produced well before 21 days had elapsed because this, after all, was the most up to date image of Madeleine and it had no business being concealed from the public.

  3. 3
    Emma Says:

    I’m a photographer. Light reflected off water and glass have ways of altering shadows in images. Professional photographers use this to great effect. You cannot use physics to trace light direction unless you know each reflecting surface. This includes water, window, pale stone, sand, etc. Basic photographic forensics will teach you to throw your suppositions out under such circumstances.

    Reply: Ray tracing is physics. Light and reflection is a known entity. There is no way the reflection in Gerry’s left sunglass lens makes any kind of sense at all. Basic photographic forensics shows this image to be a fraud.

  4. 4
    Angelique Says:

    With you some of the way – I think this is definitely an amalgamation of pictures – with exception of the shadow you refer to – imagine if Gerry were to ‘straighten up’ his back his t shirt would flatten and surely this supposed shadow of his nose would disappear – leaving the slight irregularity further up a faithful outline of his ear?

    Would shadow on ruffled cloth would look like this. I admit the more I look at these photos the more they sort of fall apart.

  5. 5
    Suzanne Says:

    Interesting analysis. I’m partly convinced – what do you think of the possibility that it’s Gerry who has been added in and not Maddy? The more I look at that left leg of his (his right, our left) the more it looks like a cut and paste job and not-quite-good-enough cloning/healing tool use. (I’m a photographer too and that leg for me sticks out like a sore thumb.) So, an already existing pic of the two kiddies, with Gerry pasted in at a later date. That would explain the odd shadows and the sun’s highest point anomaly.

    Keep up the good work.

  6. 6
    Suzanne Says:

    Another note .. I’ve been having a very good look at this pic in Photoshop. I need to compare it with other copies on the net, as it may be that the Italian newspaper’s editors tweaked some of the detail to bring out definition, but the more I look at it the more I think he’s been pasted in.

    Look at the line of the poolside, and then look at the line between his legs where his hand is apparently tucked under the rim of the pool. It’s not. The line of the top rim of the pool doesn’t follow through.

    Secondly, the outline of his arm (our left, his right) is distinctly more out of focus / blurred than details in the background, and yet neither of the two kiddies are out of focus as much as that arm. You can see some work has been done to blur or define the outline, particularly on the outer edge.

    Thirdly, there’s some odd cloning going on at the lower edge of the sleeve (his right, our left).You can see the square shapes of the clone tool. That’s odd, when the other sleeve hasn’t been doctored. So, what was on his right side to be cloned out.

    Another reason for my thinking Maddie has not been pasted in is the detail of her hair. Given the quality of the other PS work in this pic, for that same person to manage to deal with the fine wisps of her hair would make it obvious she was pasted in. Maddie’s hair hasn’t been tampered with – unless a second person did it but then why would that person not do the whole photo.

    Lots of shadow anomalies too, as you point out.

    Curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said ..

  7. 7
    Marty Says:

    HI again. Yes, I’ve been thinking that we may be focusing on the wrong thing and that there is even more to this photograph than we thought. This is going to sound funny now – sorry – but a couple of days ago I had a dream about Kate McCann – Usually I have vivid and sometimes lucid dreams and they always seem to indicate something. Since following this case from May 2007 I have had only 1 dream of the McCanns (which I recalled at the MIrror Forum) but now suddenly, out of the blue, after stopping my re-reading of the subject (for about a month), suddenly I dream about Kate McCann and her being ‘sarcastic’ at us (sceptics) continued comments on them and Madeleine. I woke up and thought it was highly strange to have dreamed about HER…I think there may be more news to come soon on this strange case…I just wanted to share my thoughts!! 🙂

  8. 8
    Angelique Says:

    Suzanne – I think the blurring on his leg and arm are his fuzzy body hair – but not sure about the square shapes – it’s visible on the other arm just under the sleeve – unless they are marks from a tight elasticated sleeve ? This doesn’t account for the wretched black line behind Amelie. Agree about his hand – it doesn’t sit well with the edge of the pool. It looks further forward than it should be. But where is the shadow of Amelie’s hat – surely there should be one corresponding reflected onto Gerry. it’s an amalgamation of pictures in my opinion.

  9. 9
    Marty Says:

    Its funny you should mention the edge of the pool. I’ve always thought that the scale of them sitting on the edge looked a bit ‘off’ and that they appear ‘too near’ the camera, yet sort of ‘suspended on the edge’ of the pool!! (SO its not just my imagination there!)

  10. 10
    Curious Says:

    I will admit, the pooledge visible between Gerry McCann’s legs and hand looks..odd…But then I realised the pool is curved and if he’s sitting at a curvy point it explains the odd look, plus the pool side is white which is why it seems to ultra bright, it’s reflecting the sun.

    Then his right (our left) arm looks weird and fuzzy but I think that’s just image noise as the sunbeds in the same basic position are out of focus as well.

    I’ll admit the little girls shadow on his leg is hard to place but I’ll be honest, Praiza De Luz is very similar in its layout and weather to Tenerife where I’ve holidayed my entire life…you can get some very, very weird shadows at odd times of the day that seem to go against everything we know about light and shadows.
    Part of it is to do with the white paint they use on the buildings to keep them cool, the pool water reflections,light being bounced back off the white sunbeds, everything.

    So yeah, I’ll be honest, I’m skeptical about your entire analysis and I DO feel you’re reading too much into the shadows etc while ignorning a lot of other relevant facts.
    How ever having just spent quite a bit more time than I should of examining the aerial shots and photo, I think commenter deeb might be wrong. I DO agree they’re in the kids pool as evidence by the aeriel shot showing canopy’s set up around the little pool, as well as the tree behind them on the grassy verge. It also explains the sunbeds behind resting on concrete etc. If the picture was taken on the other side of the verge, it’s end, where you can walk past it and not over it, would be visible.

    What IS interesting, and I say this knowing aerial shots can make distances look larger or smaller than they are, is the wall in the background.
    The wall is covered in vines and plants and is incredibly picturesque.
    It doesn’t seem all that far away from the family based on the scale of the sunbeds in the background.

    In this pic we see three kids sitting at roughly the same position as the McCann’s in the last photo, and we can surmise that Kate was standing roughly where that blue towel is laying on the ground(in order to capture the family, verge, canopy post, tree, sunbeds etc…

    So we have a pretty solid baseline established for both her position and proximity, the kids and Gerry, the tree etc
    We can also make a safe bet that the reflection in Gerry’s left lens is actually either the fence to the tennis courts, or comes from one of the trees opposite him, behind where Kate would have been standing, as seen in this picture;

    SO to be fair, all the details of the picture can be explained, roughly…

    the reason I bring up the wall is simply…look at the picture….look at the aerial shots. Even accounting for distance distortion due to the framing of the photograph, that wall is not THAT big that it would take up the whole back of the frame.
    It is way too close to the family, to large in the background, and totally out of scale. That to me suggests something off but frankly I dont think the McCann’s are sinister enough to go to all that trouble.
    The wall probably looks big because of the low angle of the shot making the grassy verge seem too small to match up between angles.

    I DO firmly believe Maddie died the night she was ‘abducted’, through negligence if not malice.
    I don’t believe there is any sinister, Freemason conspiracy, just two panicked parents who lost a child through their own irresponsible parenting, and did the wrong thing.
    Saying that, no one has yet explained how her body was removed from the apartment if she did die before the alarm was raised.
    It does make sense she died earlier on, which would explain the cadaver smell and make hiding her body far more plausible, but I don’t think this picture is doctored, just odd looking.

  11. 11
    KaOssis Says:

    Hi Stevo,

    Very interesting diagnosis of the shadow anomallys, reminded me of being back at school and hqaving to do the same analysis of JFK’s photos in determining where the shots that killed him originated from, which was actuallly from the gun concealed under the hat of the Governor sat in the front of the presidents vehicale, he was left handed and shot through his own right shoulder at the head of JFK.
    Well, this so called last photo of Madleiene has more anomally’s than just the od shadows in the wrong directions, especially that reflection in Gerry’s sunglasses, which only appears to be in one lense rahter than both lenses which you would expect as Gerry is facing directly at the camera. I decided to cut out the image of Gerry’s left sunglassed eye, whoofed up the DPI and cleaned it up by dusting it, then sharpened it a bit more to see if the image reflected in it was of Kate facing Gerry and the girl’s to take the photo, but it wasn’t, but it’s definately a blond haired women but facing sideways on talking to someone in the shadowed area which looks like a doorway to a building, but when you look at the aerial photo of the same pool and the direction in which the photo was taken by Kate accompanied by Sean, i.e; Gerry looking towards the tennis courts, there appeares to be no building there at all, no walls or anything, only the fences and palm trees to the tennis courts, so how could Kate have been taking this photo if her reflection prove’s to show her standing sideways to Gerry and the girls and talking to someone and her hands no where in sight or even holding a camera to her face? It’s pretty obvious that this photo is a complete concoction several photographs, and if the police can’t see this, then they’re just as corrupt as the McCann’s themselves!

  12. 12
    Kristel Says:

    If you take a close look at his sunglasses you will see the reflection of a swimmingpool. But the swimmingpool where the picture is taken, is clearly round, and as you can see in the reflection he has a squared pool in his sunglasses?!

    I’m sorry for my english, i’m from Holland..

  13. 13
    Super Sleuth Says:

    Lets say that one thing we can guarantee is that the white plastic sun lounger behind Gerry is there. Look at the shadow underneath it what does it indicate, it indicates that the sunlight is coming almost from 180 degrees, so coming from Gerrys right side(your left) so why no shadows behind the girls and Gerry. Also look at the size of that sun lounger then look at Gerry and the girls, doesnt look right.

    I think this could be 3 or 4 photos merged, 1 of an empty pool, 1 of Gerry, and maybe 1 or 2 of the girls.

  14. 14
    Marian Says:

    Re the infamous poolside photo, I’d like to add my thoughts for what they may be worth. I have no specialist knowledge on photography but it’s just a gut feeling I have that there’s something wrong with it – I’m certainly not alone there. I feel that it could have been taken the previous summer, let’s say August 2006. Madeleine looks rather young to be nearly 4 but if the photo was taken nine months earlier, her age then of 3 and a quarter is more believable and I also reckon that Amelie looks about 18 months old, correct for the summer of 2006. The photo was clearly taken on a very hot day but the weather in PDL in May would have been considerably cooler. This would explain why the photo was not immediately available (and had to be retrieved from home) and why the girl in the tennis court photo (if it is Madeleine) looks older than the one at the poolside, a child can change a lot in nine months.

  15. 15
    Super Sleuth Says:



    I went with my gut feeling after I posted this comment, suggest you focus your attention to the mans face, especially sun glasses, nose, forehead. If you blow up the picture it looks like that part has been pasted in, the chin and mouth look unlike Gerry’s

  16. 16
    Dr McCann YOUR NICKED Says:

    where’s poor little Amelies right arm gone . i think they have airbrushed it out to make it look like its inside her top. A child that age would not sit that close to a pool edge with one hand firmly on the ground and the other arm/hand inside there top. Her right arm would be out of her top and her hand would also be firmly on the ground to support herself exactly the the same way as her left arm & hand. plus the top of Amelies right sleeve looks like her arm should be coming out of it the way the sleeve is angled. (i do hope you all understand what i’m try to get across)

  17. 17
    Jean Says:

    In reply to the last comment, it is just possible to see a little of Amelie’s right arm – look above the shadow between her and Gerry; it is there but you may need to enlarge the image to notice it. I don’t believe for one minute that the photo was taken when it supposedly was though.

  18. 18
    guest Says:

    I was intrigued by Super Sleuth’s comment (13). I was trying to explain the lounger shadows and no shadows by the McCanns, but am not really convinced now. Anyway, here is what I thought:

    I think the lack of shadows behind the people might be explained (as much by the reality of the photo as it could by someone faking a photo) that the sun is much higher in the sky than thought. The shadows of the loungers are only visible on the ground directly underneath the loungers. The loungers are not casting shadows behind the objects, but more or less completely underneath them. They are raised from the ground, so we see shadows. The 3 persons are positioned on the ground, covering the part where their shadows would fall if there were any.

    Perhaps there should be a tiny bit of shadow going to the right of the photograph. I don’t know.

    Like most other people, this photo doesn’t add up to me. Am I imagining it, or does Gerald McCann look nearly a year younger in this photo – whether or not anyone is pasted into the photo? As Marian writes (14), Madeleine and Amelie could easily be younger in this photo. But more to the point, surely the tan the little girl has in the tennis balls photo (allegedly in the preceeding days), and Madeleine’s much whiter skin here (looking like she has just received her very first rays), means that either that photo or this one could not be of the times suggested. That’s assuming that the girl in the tennis balls photo is Madeleine McCann, others have suggested that that is a different girl in those photos.

    The darkness which is suggested in this photo is Gerald McCann’s nose – is that believable? Can that man’s nose cast such a huge shadow? I really don’t think so. The shadow of the supposed nose is vast. Is this even an deliberate inclusion, intentionally extreme? And is there some intention of the ‘photograph’ having an alleged timed at 1:29 – solar or true noon? It’s like a fable or movie.

  19. 19
    dewdrop Says:

    Having read much debate about the lack of evidence in the Mccann case I think we only need one piece of concrete evidence to stop the controversy and it has been in front of us all the time. Both Mccann’s swear that this photo was taken on the day Madeleine disappeared.
    If this photo can be proven to be false it is the concrete evidence we need to prove that the Mccann’s are guilty of a number of crimes and have misled all and sundry. It is simple do a test yourself or build a model. In fact stand in the middle of your room under your light and try it out. Bodies leave shadows if you put your arm or elbow out a shadow will appear below it. If someone walked passed you on a sunny day with no shadow you would be freaked out, in the same way that if a shadow passed by you with no-one attached you would be freaked out. That is because shadows are important and are predictable a sundial is proof of this.
    You do not have to understand photography or physics to understand this. NOTICE! Gerry Mccann’s arm is not leaving a shadow. The shadow should be between Madeleine and Amelie because of where the sun is. He has been stuck in there like you stick a label on a window that is why there is no shadow on the poolside. It is not physically possible for him to be there with his arm in that position and leave no shadow. As you can see from his forehead and the direction of the other shadows the sun is overhead to the left and slightly forward. See the blue lines in the photo that show approximately where the sun is shining from and which way the rays and shadows fall. Do some tests use your eyes and draw your own conclusions. Shadowless arms don’t exist in bright sunlight.

  20. 20
    guest Says:

    Yes. I tried to disagree with what you’re saying, dewdrop, but it’s impossible, I think.

    You’re photo with the graphic lines superimposed can’t really lie. That can be chilling. I wanted to dismiss it, but I can’t. Because you can’t dismiss, it leads you to examine meanings in the photo. Like the massive nose shadow, was this intentionally added by someone? I could say that the full shadow of his head, which is odd, upside down looks like a ghost carrying a chain, or lantern or something. When you see from your analysis, there really is a shadow of an arm missing from a photo, and there is no good reason for it, it’s hard not to look for stories in the composition, wherever they came from. The missing arm shadow is almost taunting you to, it can seem.

  21. 21
    sandra Says:

    if you look at this movie, you see a picture of Madeleine, just sit by the pool.
    if you look at the arms of her father and the head of her sister (the last picture””) and the picture of madeleine (which the parents have made a movie around Christmas) at the pool, it can be almost otherwise … the picture is edited.

  22. 22
    G1 Says:

    I just posted most of what I’m writing in this comment in the comments for another article (“The 48 Questions…”), but it is most relevant here.

    It comes after the shadow analysis made by dewdrop in comment 19, above. Here is, again, dewdrop’s shadow analysis of the supposed last photo taken of Madeleine McCann before she went missing:

    … … …

    I thought the blinding lack of a shadow (of an elbow and a sizable part of an arm) where there needs to be one in a photo does say something big.

    That big thing the photo is saying is one of two things, because a very doctored photo has to be doctored by someone, and for a mighty important reason.

    The first possibility was that the McCanns were involved in doctoring or consented to doctoring the photo. (Because it’s their photo, published as evidence of whereabouts of themselves and the missing daughter at a certain time, on a certain date.)

    The second possibility was that the photo was removed from their digital camera and doctored by someone else who wanted to try to scapegoat the McCann parents, and saved in the camera or memory card again, back where the original was deleted from. (This could have happened before or after the child was taken. That would mean there was a valid ‘last photo’ which had been taken genuinely, but was then doctored to make it look faked.) It’s a very important possibility – if a credit card was stolen, or if it is possible the camera could have been taken and replaced within a day, in Portugal, UK, wherever.

    The second possibility IS very important because it seems to me the photo is so evidently doctored. The missing elbow shadow. If this were the McCanns photoshopping a photo – it can seem quite unlikely the family would submit as evidence something so blatantly doctored. Such a large shadow just missing? Was it not chosen?

    If an organised group of abductors stole & replaced the camera, photoshopping the photo to try to put serious suspicion on the McCanns, a whole, evident missing elbow shadow may be a likely target.

    The thing is, but for these two possibilities, I can’t think of any other legitimate possibility as to why there would be a missing elbow and sizable arm part shadow in this supposed piece of evidence. So, surely one of the two possibilities must be true?

    I think it’s the most important thing I’ve come across in all of the evidence, I think. It does say one thing or the other happened. But it has been ignored by police and most of the media.

    It’s so fishy. But the missing shadow may go with the professional child trafficking group theory – one more reason being the high professionalism needed in the group, which would be otherwise apparent. The holiday appartment was absolutely clear of any forensic traces whatsoever. (Far beyond any amateur effort). So if the child was abducted, one would be talking about the highest professionals in child procuring and abduction.

    This fits with the aspect of also doctoring the last photo of the child on the parents’ camera in computer photo software to try to lay blame on them and cover the abductor’s tracks – very professional. Whilst, perhaps it’s me, but it seems that the parents would be foolish to doctor a photo and leave out such a shadow so blatantly.

  23. 23
    G1 Says:

    “In his daily blog on the official website Mr McCann wrote: “Our friends brought back my wallet which had been returned, needless to say minus the sterling, although all my cards and 30 euros were still in it!

    “It is good to have my driving license back and one or two other important things,” he wrote, referring to the photographs of his daughter who has now been missing for 60 days.”

    I suppose that the McCanns have stated to the police that the last photo was in some form of digital storage in the lost & returned wallet.

    Mr McCann’s wallet was stolen and later posted to his former address in Queniborough, Leicester which had still been present on the driving license (the license he used to hire the car back in Portugal). It seems the residents in the Queniborough house forwarded the wallet to Mr McCann.

    It was stated there was nothing taken from the wallet but a sum of sterling, but cash in Euros was not touched.

    I wonder if the police would have taken fingerprints from the wallet.

    But, also, I suppose if the wallet had been stolen from Mr McCann by a person or persons connected with abducting Madeleine, IN ORDER TO leave a DOCTORED last photo of the girl that might (if necessary) implicate the McCanns in the disappearance (falsely or truly) – THEY WOULD LEAVE NO FORENSIC EVIDENCE.

Leave a Reply

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.


Log in | Designed by Gabfire themes