madeleine mccann, the first picture, and just more pictures.

the first picture out to the world showing madeleine mccann, a missing girl, that still is used by interpol on their notice, was an oldy, but was it a mystery in itself too.

maybe not so much, it was from the statements of the tapas 9 that its origin was on a device owned by kate mccann. some called it an usb stick, others from one of the camera’s owned and used by kate.

what is clear and easy to notice is that it was no recent picture, just an oldy, just a snap sot of a little girl called madeleine. no mystery in that, the girl looks enough similar as in all the other pictures.

sometimes pictures do tell a story, but they could tell untrue stories too. in many different ways even, and in 2007 photo shopping was already a household name for the correcting or falsify a digital, or digital remake picture. do not make the mistake it was not possible in the analog times, i was quite talented in what was called making retouches. the only difference was you just had quite some skills in doing photo shop by hands with very sharp knives, scissors, and a full colour pallet of pencils, and of course for people like me, who on their own do not have any talent in taking a picture of any quality, a static camera and lightning to make the remake into a picture of the results.

and it is not easier to change data that comes with a picture file, in the old days you had simply to put the negatives in a plastic bag with some moisture, or burn them outside.

i lived quite a few years between all kind of photographers, many pro, many at least high end quality amateurs, the kind that do wins prizes for it internationally. i never found any love or liking for the digital production of pictures, it is more even a disliking. but i have been able to follow how the very good worked with it, explained what they did how, i have been very often even near how the picture perfect result came together, even in the wild outdoors, it is so much more than just push a button.

i fully understand that polaroid was long times the standard for a basic set of crime scene pictures, the only ones who were hard to do some handy work on. usually as back ground and checking material with pictures made with other techniques. analog also had for black and white need of a few hours to get from pushing the button to showing the picture, full colour took much more time, and not many did that at home, we could manage it at home in the studio in the attic, but it was never of the same resolution as reached by the factory studio’s.

in the digital photography that is no longer a problem, but changing data and it is still all data, that only is translated to a picture as we see it, everything can be changed without much difficulty. patience is usually the only thing you need to get a great result. it is just up to you in what standard of quality the result will be.

it is very hard even by true experts in the field to tell if the picture is indeed a true snapshot of a moment in time, what often is found can still be simply the result from cropping by a camera, or printing the file, pictures are still losing an dimension, real view is 3d, pictures only have two, so depth will always be fake, misleading of our minds and views. even the quality of the device used to look at a picture has influences.

and photo shopping is often just done to mask small mistakes, so finding out there is some work done, does not prove all is faked. and not seeing mistakes does not prove it is a true copy as made by just that light push on a button.

with that it is pretty useless to discuss much about work done on what are mostly just snapshots of a family holiday. at least where it is about how we can look at the pictures out there.

the extra data in the file behind a picture is different, still that can easily changed by hand, the so called exif data, are mostly a feature to give a title or even small text to the background of a picture, but it was very easy to change all that is in it, the old explorer browser even had a drop down menu to handle that.
i myself have proven how easy that worked during a court case on copyrights long ago. and because of that i know it was at least available in 2006 already.

the only thing that can be of interest, is the reason why it needs to be changed, and if that was done with the want to mislead.

for the first known snapshot of madeleine that is not even under discussion, more it is about when the reprints been made to be used to hand out to the portuguese police and later on to inform the public.

the story presented was a photo file on a device, found by using that to look on the little a screen of a camera, selected and offered to assisting people in the ocean club offices. the questions marks are mostly on how the picture itself was used to make about 20 first reprints on a printer. by the use of a specific camera, that only could be used by a specific printer system that was able to dock that camera.

one of the nannies amy said she had such a printer and said she got it from her own lodgings to the office and from there they printed the first row of pictures. the printer was said a bit later on taken to france by a boyfriend of amy.

there are some bits in the pj files, because they had their questions too, like the availability of the amount of the specific printing paper for pictures. the found out that specific paper was not sold in portugal itself, but amy was from the uk, where it was on sale.

and the used printer could no longer be checked, so that was a dead end. and if amy simply said, i am used to this printer and format and just took multiple packages of this format paper with me, because it could take some time to get a fresh batch, because she was in portugal for the time being. what would be very hard to disprove.

also there was no crime defined, the pj already had to adept to take an abduction??? as their remit for that to get an investigation going. i do not see much option to rework, the print some pictures story could have led to a high enough threshold that could fit enough suspicion to get a warrant to get that printer back in portugal. legally there simply was nothing to be the foundation under a warrant.

the same reason why the mccanns have been allowed without restrictions to get their stuff out of unit 5a during the night of may 4.

the mystery is in itself much more a load of questions without an answer, not from facts in the case. questions are easily asked, but it does not automatically ends up in a proven fact because it could fit somewhere in a story your mind just made up.

looking into people, into their stuff, confiscating their stuff, all ask for a legal ground to do that, and for the police that means they must be able to knit it into a connection of a crime. the given information does not deliver that.
even if amy still had the printer, it could only be politely asked by the police to hand it over to be searched and studied, even when amy told lies it would not be fitting in that stage to act on, by asking a warrant from the prosecution and getting one.

so no it is certainly not a missed red flag, at least not for the investigation at that time, maybe now only on the internet. but there is it more common to not only make up the question, but also an usable answer.

the question why an old picture was chosen, by the statements it was not a choice of the mccanns, but from russell o’brien. maybe russell o was even the very first armchair detective in this case. he also wrote the first two timelines. a shame he missed the internet armchair detective discussion about saving a crime scene, that up to today at best never even made it that far, scenes of an accident are not crime scenes.

i agree it was a bad choice, and the mingling by russell and the use of the picture, escaped the pretty standard questions about do you have a recent picture, with full face from the front, and with open eyes, ears are a welcome thing. but less likely to see them enough in pictures of females. usually it is the police who like to choose when multiple pictures are available.

the question if it was chosen to mislead can be asked, but not be answered, these little things in itself can not be used to prove anything, and can only have a small chance to much later in the process of investigation be of use to be used as circumstantial evidence. the effort was at least put through it, to being able do that later on, but the investigation had never get to that stage.

there is also no official document in the pj files that stated the remit of the investigation, or that this changed, it did, i know i could handle that easily through a phone call to the prosecution officer that handled my case. i never have seen such a document from my side, but it can certainly be a form in the prosecution administration, and they are in portugal not part of the case files.
with most missing formal filing that is missing, there is another organisation on the other side, and each has its own files of a case.

still in such young children their faces work as a chameleon, different angles give a different view, so the one moment they look older than their age, in others younger. also they change quite a lot quickly through aging too. take a look for that aspect through an album of your own early years pictures to see that.

the last picture even had more discussion and still has, the change of date and time would be easy, and it is a rare one, because there are prints online that still have original exif data, at least that we think could be originally send with the publication of the picture to the media. there are many more with exif data of the press agencies that made them available too.

but in reality it is not even that much interested if it had some work done on it, i think the question to ask is, what was the use to publish this picture of madeleine with her daddy and little sister on the side of the pool.

i think it is often not very correctly used, because the why this picture and why on that moment ever was answered before, but the picture itself does not prove anything, even if the mccanns and their freshly back in babysitting pr duckling used it just for what it shows, a happy girl on a holiday in the sun.

the picture itself never was handed to the pj. so they did at least not lie to the police.
so in that way they never used it officially to be used as proof of last seen alive.
telling porkies to the public through news outlets is an accepted approach. and pr guru’s use very often just a nicer picture, that can help in painting an image a bit better.

so a bit of work on the exif data, to show a happy child, with a responsible daddy next to his young daughter near an adult pool, maybe not the best idea, but much better than the hottest story of leaving your kids at home alone to nash and slurp. it still could fit the narrative of a perfect happy family up to the evening of may 3, 2007.

a very different but still loaded lie.

but we ask the questions, and choose from the options our preferred answer, it is not the true answer of the mccanns or their pr duckling. so by doing that, the risk is very high to end up in building your case theory on quicksand.

then there are the other pictures, delivered on a cd-rom by gerry mccann from that holiday. a collection ended up in the pj files.

the person who translated the files gives an explanation why they are in black and white;
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm#bw


See Also Video Tapes & memory Cards deleted images
PHOTOGRAPHS Outros Apensos - 3 Volume III - Apenso VIII
97 pages of images; mostly black and white silhouettes; many duplicates.
TRANSLATION BY ALBYM
They are my own descriptions, and yes, almost all of the B&W (non-grey scale) images do not readily permit identification of the individual. They were created for the PDF using what is is known as 'pure Black and White' scanning/printing - there are no other colours whatsoever in the images.


what is a sound explanation why they ended up in black and white, because they have been uploaded to the files as such.

the translator for the website mccannpjfiles made them into a bit better to understand lay out, and tried to identify the pictures to most likely who is in them, and put known full colour versions that have been public through other sources next to them.

using a old printer could do the same, the older ones did no grey tones, just black and white, what was quite nuissance in the days, because if you wanted to have nice copies with clear pictures, you usually had to go to a print shop and let them grab them and print in full colour, often still with a lesser abundant set of colours, but better workable.

most modern printers do greyscale too. usually optional if you want to save on the coloured ink cartridges.

these pictures have been still private property, and the pj got maybe the right to use them for investigation purposes, but that does not include publishing them for other purposes.

also in many are little children en of course the news outlets would simply have nick the pictures. in stead of pixeling or the black bar what is done in a few in the original files, it was simply much easier to change the settings during scanning to black and white scale. you also have to deal with portret rights by law.

so there is nothing in the files that does tell these pictures been delivered to the pj in the same black and white scans or files.

the files were handed out to the media on a disc not on paper.

you have to look into the original pj files, the link above is a worked on copy from information in these;

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/OUSTROS_APENSOS_3_8.htm

this is why reading all the files is always important, even when you have no idea what it is about in portuguese, there are a lot of usually all greyscale or in black ands white scanned pictures used, you get a better idea what the pj had in information.

the translating of the most important files was a mammoth task, very well done, but still not all was translated, so by looking to the original files you can sometimes find answers. without thinking to much in an explanation you never will be able to check, that still will only be speculation. it has nothing to do with not trusting the translations, even operation grange redirected some outlandish writers to them.
and for the ones who have trust issues the originals are there too, just do your own work.
i have had the opportunity to get a part of another set, handed to another party and they are exactly the same, and i am indeed not fond of just taking the words for it, and if i can check, i like doing that. even your own memory cannot be flawless, it is human after all, so if you can check, what can be brought against that.
and there is simply a world in between answers and opinionated reactions. the last you can hardly check, and before you know it, you are spending a lot of time in fairy tales, or outright myths.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ORIGINAL_FILES.htm

and it is not that hard to simply use one of many translation websites or apps, i am fond of deepl, and sometimes use even multiple ones, because a small difference can matter. translating apps works usually much better if you let it translate to english.
as soon as you start heavily investing in building a theory, translate all files about the parts again is recommended. just to be sure. checking does not harm anyone. translation is simply never one to one.

the original files order also keeps much in the true order it all played out, so it gives often a bit more insight about what happened around what dates. also how long things can take before an answer was back.

In days of yore there was a much overused expression .... 'the camera never lies'.

Well realistically that might well be true - but!

Looking at social media from time to time it makes you so angry to see image manipulation used to deceive, to create a false impression some might call propaganda.  More annoying still that some people believe what is before their eyes without question no matter how shoddy the image might be presented - and this is nothing new!

So the 'camera never lies' can be tossed away with the garbage without further thought.

As regards images of Madeleine McCann, it was and remains a mystery why that particular image was given to the Portuguese police, to assist their investigation, an image so clearly of a younger child taken outside the holiday environment.  Why so when they had images of Madeleine taken during the holiday?


Madeleine McCann:  PJ's missing persons official release.


Madeleine McCann:  Ocean Club playground April/May 2007


Madeleine McCann:  Poolside 3rd May 2007

There has never been a satisfactory explanation.

none of would be seen as enough recognisable features, full front fase, more like the classic portraits used on passports of a school picture. and all pictures been kept outside the first part of the investigation.

still remember over 8500 people decided to recognise madeleine and reported they have seen her. most would be done through the local police forces, so they are not all in the pj files, or maybe even known in portugal.

even the less common feature in her eye, is not something you will actively look for in children you see around inside or outside where you are. and for most she looks just as a young girl.

if it is a mystery , you can only tell with hind sight, when the bigger questions are solved, officially the still are not.

at the start the gnr officers had until about 23.15 hours the idea it was most likely just a young girl walked out, and that means at that time, you do not need more than a very young girl walking about, because it was no time frame to expect many young children walking around without an adult. they already phoned it in to the pj as a story that did not add up.
the picture was already around, it was simply handed by a male to the officers when they used their car as an instant office, and they had nothing to check that picture against.

with the mass attention of the media so early on, and all the other pictures going around, there was most likely not even a need to ask for a better picture.

russell ended up inside unit 5a, in a kind of mix between organiser and fixer, and kept most of the time gerry mccann company. he seems to have looked upfront for a picture, and there is nothing about what kate and gerry did during that time.
kate was by most statements just in the parent bedroom, and/or traversing between that and the twins checking if they still were breathing. their role in looking for a picture is simply not to know.

russell i reserve for another part.

for a first usable picture this can also simply happen, but even with the early walking in assistance it is stranger it was not repaired by bring on the more recent holiday pictures during the media moment they had.

many people would in 2007 still have the old analog picture taking in their mind. what took time to let them print off, so it was always a bit of a problem to get a recent usable full face picture in such young children, they are not jet part of the school picture making, and when on a holiday people did not take much pictures of their children in their luggage. often it was just a old picture that was already pretty well damaged from a wallet.

in many minds the changing to the digital era was not yet there. and the police who is handed the picture has no idea how the child looks now. so even when they asked maybe, if it was a recent one, and another just says, the best one i could find, it will simply be used. also i never could get it that clear if silvia batista was directly next to the one who handed the pictures to the gnr. and if translating was done in that moment. she was around, but the details are missing.

so there is just to much of little gaps to really know how that all was handled.

it was not very helpful, because young children can change very fast. still even if you look at both pictures in the post above, someone who does not know this child, could still have problems with telling it was that same child in both pictures.

but in itself it is not even reaching into being a kind of evidence that there was a goal to mislead others, it is not a kind of key fact, only with hindsight you can put a meaning to it. there are many more little things, and yes they deserve to be in a theory, but in itself it can not be substantial enough to prove that theory.

the camera never lies, belongs on the same shelf as if it is out on the internet, it is there for ever.

both can be true in looking at a specific picture, or file, but never all pictures or all files.

and it was even made easier, not to fake it, but to handle the ugly bits in a picture simply at home.
i learned the old style mostly on pro made pictures during receptions and weddings. most people do not pose in the moment such pictures are made, so there are very often things you do not want to put in an album. from open mouths, wandering eyes to places you do not want remembered of, or hand poses that can tell a different story than ever was told when making them.

but you could do the same to use it under the mantra the camera never lies, or the picture tells its story. it was much harder by the way with the black and white photography, that is simply less forgiving, in colour pictures it is much easier. and even the paper

and even pro photographers can discuss and fight during it if something is real or artificial. and even a confession is in that not always accepted to end such disputes.

in the categorie other pictures i want to put some words to the presented as the last one.

a holiday snap of a daddy and his both daughters, sitting at the side of a pool.

the last days it is going around that, when can be proven this picture cannot be made on that last thursday afternoon, a time before the world was told madeleine was missing, it would prove madeleine was no longer alive at that moment.

well what is wrong in such ridiculous statement?

there are multiple out there, so it is not even one to another this time out.

i can fully agree it is possible to change the settings that end up in that little box that comes with it and is called exif data.
first it is not there to prove anything at all, it is simply a feature that we all can use if we want and like to put a date with a picture and even give the picture a title. there was no special education, training, or talent needed to work that little box.
it was for many years easy to handle and came with the internet explorer, i never looked if others had the same or not, but it is highly likely there were other of these little pieces of software around to handle the same.

i myself never was able to find anything iffy with the picture itself, so for me the use of digital scissors and other utensils are unlickely. but i have first hand experience with pictures that had exif data that been manually changed. it was quite easy, because it was in a court of law, and we could show how it could be done in the court itself, and we had the original file of that picture, including the bill of the company who printed it professionally after it was made, in the bill was a tumbnail visible including the exif data that came with it at the company. the picture was stored in the original packing and that had even a readable post stamp. only this picture known as the last picture or the pool picture need a better suited expert in that field to give an expert opinion it is indeed an original shot. a named one to check the credibility of such expertise is very welcome.

first what the mccanns never did was stating this picture was made that afternoon of may 2007 to an police investigation or in a court. still if they had been on such moment in time been suspects, their answer would not matter if truthful or not, there can hardly be extra information that could make it into telling with it of any guilty knowledge.

and telling porkies to the public or media does not sort easily under any culpable offence. i mean the old saying;but it was in the papers!, is not even in the edition for dummies anymore.

so i can agree this picture has nothing that in itself would prove a state of still being alive. still that works to the side of prove of death too.

all it could prove that at a certain, unknown time and date madeleine most likely was alive and well, and took part in that family activity. there are other pictures to use for stating that too. so that cannot be called news, or new information.

but there is no reason that can be named as proving that the existence and fooling with the exif data tells anything at all in a supposed time of death it simply has no information that can make that proven at all. first the work done on finding the best fitting time and date to make such an picture during that week in itself is not prove of life or death after it was made.

if you look at the moment this picture made its debut in the media, that corresponded with the arrival of clarence mitchell, who it is easy to agree on was at the time quite an expert in public relations. typical a profession that like to score points where needed. there was at that time in the investigation nothing that guided into an earlier death. so the use of this picture could not have much effect there, and usually it does count there most. the other important task of clarence was saving the public reputation, the mccanns did not got an unanimous vote from the public in being innocent.

so saving reputation expert clarence could easily having decided where to find some sugar to sweeten the tea. so any picture of a doting daddy who took the time to join his children at the pool, with a smile for daddy and the missing child could also be used to show the image of the perfect happy little family in the sun.

if they had to make use of it as prove of life, they could and would handed this picture too the investigation too.
there cannot been asked any direct question from the investigation, before and after the picture ended up on the frontpages of many media, the mccanns still had the status of witness, and for such questions you have to make them first a suspect.
the pj did not make that choice at that moment.

i read it also given in words like, the picture was re-dated because madeleine was not available to make one at that time, because she was already dead. already death is only opinion fed, not by facts. like all other times of dead are. thinking of believing results not in evidence of death.

the clarence pr suggestion above is as valid or invalid as saying madeleine was death at the time and date in the exif data that comes with that picture. writing out does not make it prove of anything at all.

there is nothing wrong in writing it down that with an earlier time of death, the picture could be used to play as if had not, but that does not make it evidence. there is quite a variety in died supposedly then options, but none has the quality to out rule the hypothesis of the pj , during the first term of the portuguese investigation.

if there was or was not made a picture in itself has no information to establish time and date of death. and there is no logic that changes that at all.

both the mccanns show in their statement made, no shame or worries in telling lies to the police. still they did not offer this picture to the police.

the sad reality in this case is, is that there is a lot, but it does not go over the status of indication. and these portuguese courts want to see evidence they can accept as that. it could be, i believe it, or i think it, is simply not enough, of course we are entitled to it ourselves, but that would not count in a serious event as a court case still is. even during an investigation it would not make officers jumping up out their chairs either.

Once the initial mayhem had drawn to a close, the British press and media did a lot to portray a sweet loving family of five.  Aided and abetted by the arrival of the government media monitoring director, Clarence Mitchell.

It has been suggested many times Gerry and Kate McCann were being protected at the highest level of British politics, this is very unlikely.  However, it's quite possible the politicians and other sectors of British business saw a good opening for public relations to boost their otherwise waning public image.

There can be little or no doubt Clarence Mitchell was instrumental in the McCann's public image portrayed across press and media.  

The politician will go to any lengths to retain or regain power.

The now notorious 'poolside' photograph was said to arrive in Portugal with the father, Gerry McCann, and the government media monitoring director, Clarence Mitchell.  A very powerful man of his time - until he got himself mixed-up with the wrong people.

The man would have made a 1st class politician, look at the way they shout loud enough to be believed - Clarence Mitchell certainly did his fair share of that. They can make as many slip-ups as they like, just shout again (louder) to smother the embarrassment - it works every time, the majority these days appear to have a very short attention span.

"I was the head of the government’s Media Monitoring Unit. Forty people work there and their function is to control what comes out in the media.”
Clarence Mitchell

“He (Clarence Mitchell) lies with as many teeth as he has in his mouth”.
Carlos Anjos, head of the Portuguese police professional association

i am more in favour that it was not the mccanns that had a need for protection, but simply the government that made a silly mistake and wanted to cover that up. and that i only purported from their form. mistakes cannot see too much day light, and sun would be to avoid on all costs.

and there was no usable head to be bashed in with it, so all got manhandled a bit over the top. the mccanns only ended up to profit from it too. and was mitchell indeed spokesperson for the mccann's or simply their baby sit?

the mccann's and extended family would never be trusted to handle accidentally fallen in their hands information that could 'harm'the state. harm would not be that large in itself, mostly the usual excuses to certain organisations, some slight bruising on a career or 2.

and governments actually have a habit of doing that, and often that does not work very good, ending up opening a small cut that at best needed a bit of plaster into something that had to be surgical handled with lots of stitches.

only somewhere underway governmental stupidity got intertwined with the mccann reputation and both after that are in the act of walking a tight rope.

and yes that repainting two quasi not looking that interested in the missing of their own child into the ideal happy family idea is just point 1 in the pr bible. and a picture with a bit of a emotional fling about the last picture before vanishing of the earth of a very normal happy family would excellent to make use of.

but for a lesser pr degree, it could simple be enough as a handout of a picture that was of high enough quality to print in a paper. there was so much media, that had a need of getting bits and bobs to fill their pieces, everything would be welcome.

still that is equal in speculation as the being used to hide a time of death earlier. it is even worse, because it would only fit one single idea, and ideas do not translate into facts. it is certainly not the only reason why a picture as this one was handed out, but not one of them can be proven.

and only voting for a falsification of time of death, you have to fit this picture handout to a narrative. and that was something in my back ground in law was always adviced to stay away of. this so called last picture approach in itself has no information that trully can be used to prove what took place that week in relation to the missing child case of madeleine mccann.

the true line of thinking is not made known, so a bit of margins until you have indeed a lot of harder information is needed.
there can be many more reasons why the picture was used in that moment, none reach a stadium that you can call that one of them is better over te other.

this picture in itself can only make it acceptable that madeleine was alive and in the ocean club during that week, even finding out an exact moment the picture was truly made, would not deliver when she died after it was taken. the information to build up to that is simply not to get from this picture.

so the purported time this picture was made is often set at about the same time, on the sunday. that still does not reflect on any point after that moment on the sunday and 22.41 hours when the gnr was called.
it gives no indication or information at all, when madeleine was still around at all.

and it is easy to prove this picture does tell nothing specific at all, because when you can make use of it to purport it on a theory about a very early demise, even the sunday was favorite in certain circles, the same circles adopted without much fuss based on the same of their compositions that 1 day earlier would fit great too, because a unknown guy wrote that as his theory in a book.

with real facts and circumstances and the gathered evidence that results from it, would never be possible. you cannot change those at will or better liking.

the play ground in the media is of a very different level of an official police investigation, and that first one never marvelled much in keeping the truth above all else.
and i know it could be the result of having a different law system in the uk and the most european countries on mainland europe, is also that we on the continent simply expect possible suspects make use of their personal right to lie their hearts out.
and no one in that corner tried a story around this specific picture to the police.
also if you look at the presentation of this picture, that would only be a very minor untruth in the whole affair.

I've never been able to fully understand the critics interpretation of the 'poolside' photograph.  It was too sunny for it to be Thursday;  it was too hot to be Thursday - the only hot day was Sunday (the day after arrival) - look at the sweat on Gerry McCann's face;  Madeleine was too white for it to be the last day before departure;  there was cloud coming in from the south west 25km away;  the EXIF data was altered;  people seen locally wearing wet suits when coming off the beach signifying the temperature (I see this at all times of year in all weathers!);  it was photo-shopped;  Madeleine had a the same pink tie thing in her hair that she wore on arrival in PdL  blah blah blah ....

I venture to say you'd need to have been there to speak with any authority, even then there are no guarantees.  When you think of all the people around during that week, in 17 years not one has come forward to suggest the photograph is fake, the internet armchair detectives however seem to think they can accurately deduce fact from .... well, from what !?!  There are so many variables to consider before laying out theory to purport fact.

A sunny day does not equate to warm/hot and sweaty.
A cloudy day does not equate to cold even in the month of May.
G McCann's glossy face (?) could be sun tan oil or even water!

Speaking from experience, the tourist is a very strange breed, it does things quite out of the ordinary when on holiday.  Mid-winter makes no difference so the time of year can't be reasonably used as a key factor, aside weather can be very unpredictable. The first trip I made to a particular destination it slashed down with rain constantly for over a week, the following trip 3 months later a guy that worked on the beach said it hadn't rained for 10 years so you can't rely on local 'experts' for a true depiction of weather conditions at any one time.

Anyway, the case was investigated by the Portuguese Judiciary with due diligence, thus I think it a pointless exercise trying to find something that just isn't there.  It's a bit insulting to their professionalism and ability.  The investigation in itself would have raked-up such important information as the McCann's movements during the week, their behavior and above all else when Madeleine was last seen alive by persons independent of the family and their friends.  The 'poolside' photograph wasn't even part of that investigation - only another photograph to illustrate a happy loving family on holiday.

The opinion of an armchair detective with scant information about a specific police investigation, a realistic alternative theory does not make - or shouldn't.

You hear questions asked like 'why weren't the twins interviewed or the other children in the group' but for crying out loud, let's keep this real.  Apart from any other aspect, as has been said many times before, the PJ files released into the public domain do not reflect the investigation in it's entirety thus there can be no way of knowing anything about informal interviews and conversations - or even formal interviews that weren't considered of relevance to the investigation as far as it concerns a court of law.  Think about it, a trial would drag on for 100 years if all investigative information were presented for consideration.

Unless of course you think the Portuguese Judiciary to be a bunch of bungling sardine munching wine swilling yokels who couldn't organize a knees-up in a brewery!!!

I would still like to know how and why the EXIF data for that particular photograph made such an unexpected appearance in the public arena.

i cannot remember how the picture ended up with its original exif data, i do remember apf had at the time the exif data printed in their portfolio. most picture been hand outs, so simple print off, meaning you would not get exif from them, so this one was uploaded from a file. but there always was stuff that ended up with a bit of extra on the side.

and it was all but hard to change exif data at the time. all you needed was an uploaded file, but even a copy you made yourself could be used. it was taken for granted that is supposed to be the original data, because mitchell presented that story of a time that was an hour out of sinc because of the daylight saving hours thing, and the camera was not set to that standard time of what we call summertime, but portugal is on the same time as the uk.

i looked into it all myself too for a time, but nothing came truly from it. one of the many things that could , but not have to be a thing. it just resurfaces from time to time. not one of the pictures told something in the story itself, many could be used to pick a personal favorite theory on the go with it, but that is simply not the same a knowing the true story.

and there are many bits and pieces that can have many different story lines, but they do not work themselves in a row that could be called a proven point. in the same way you could not exclude them. and the result you end up with tells usually only more about your own thresholds of when something can be called proven, only in the reality that is not how it works out.

it would not be the first holiday snapshot that has a fake story, i think i heard many, some quite good, some bad with that awful thing of having to have fun and looking at the holiday pictures of families and offspring. just to show of. and that bunch of people had not even needed a reason at all to do that. they just liked the made up bits better. it sounded more impressing.

and the pr figures i know myself would prefer that pool picture over the other like the ones with that play house in 'old make them as dirty as you want' clothes. this one showed different clothing, so would more easily accepted as not at the same time as the rest. it had all that was needed to gain attention, it was clearly made in the tapas area near the pool. a child that had fun.
so all that in itself needed maybe some fantasy was the by line they choose to send it off with.

others that are still favorite in taking their turn over and over again are; the tennis balls picture. the lolita's aka the ice cream picture, the on the floor picture and the make up picture. and from the series without madeleine all things pyjama.

i am willing to listen to all opinions or versions that are sold as such, but that does not mean i will agree on it. if i have the time i do even look into it. most end up overly complicated. what would be rare to happen, most humans keep it stupid simple at best when they step into the world called crime. the tapas 9 did the same.

and not one of the pictures of madeleine told a part of this case history in the end. for many you could ask why you want the world to see such ones. it was not that they been short in it, many less known pictures are to be seen in an interview with kate her parents for the chilean tv i think ik was. some came through friends.