Richard Hall's film 'When Madeleine Died?' uploaded to YouTube 19th Feb

[xtina]

Thanks to an earlier response by Blonk, I now have 3 major errors in that weather chart, plus an issue with the stated method of production.

I could have a stab at the source of these errors, but to prove it I would need to put major effort into finding the person Mr Hall states is the source, and my life is too short for such a futile exercise.

That weather chart is as real as The Hitler Diaries.

I want to move on to a couple of the other aspects surrounding the holiday photos, so I am done discussing weather charts.

your best bet would be to ask ...R H ....who his source was ..

.or any questions you need to ask .

.there is a page on his web site to do this

[Benice]

then why didn't he get him to make the photo appear to be taken in dull weather conditions? 


oh pleeese....what round a pool ...with sun hats  feet in pool bare arms ....

look at the photo would hardly look right in dull weather ...would it

So if the sun was coming in and out intermittently (which seems likely) - would you expect them to be whipping off the sun hats and dragging them out of the pool every time the sun went in and then putting their hats back on and going back to the pool every time the sun reappeared?   Surely not.  That would be silly.  IMO

[Carana]

your best bet would be to ask ...R H ....who his source was ..

.or any questions you need to ask .

.there is a page on his web site to do this

I thought that Hall's "documentary", or whatever one chooses to call it, was supposed to be fact-based? If so, why wasn't the source mentioned?

Is there any particular reason why a bona fide source would choose to remain anonymous concerning weather conditions in late April - early May?

[ShiningInLuz]

Someone on 3A appeared to have got the full Exif data.


XMP
Create Date 2007:05:24 17:41:20+01:00
11 months, 23 days, 7 hours, 3 minutes, 4 seconds ago
Creator Tool Adobe Photoshop CS Windows
Date/Time Digitized 2007:05:03 13:29:51+01:00
1 year, 13 days, 11 hours, 14 minutes, 33 seconds ago
Date/Time Original 2007:05:03 13:29:51+01:00
1 year, 13 days, 11 hours, 14 minutes, 33 seconds ago

...

http://3as.madeleinemccann.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=13025&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&hilit=generation

The camera first came out towards the end of 2005.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canona620/

Let me see if I've got this correct.

Photo supposedly taken 3 May 2007.

Photo apparently not in those handed to PJ by Gerry and A N Other around 8th May.

Gerry on 10th May states he has no further photos of Madeleine.

The Final Photo was released on 24 May 2007.

A high res version appears to surface with KTPHorg around mid-May 2008.

This is put through EXIFtool to generate the EXIF data that you listed, around mid-May 2008.

KTPH claimed to be an organisation to Keep The Profile High of all missing children, not just Madeleine.

KTPH site no longer exists.  (One post on 3As suggests the user using the name theKTPHorg was based in Spain when the image surfaced, though the quality of the English used suggests his/her first language was English.)

Based on the above, my first question would be how KTPH got hold of this.  It appears not to be direct from Team McCann, but from the version released on 24 May 2007, complete with meta-data added by AP (?), something Team McCann was unlikely to have.

So, is there any more info on how KTPH got an AP photo? But did not credit AP.

Thanks Carana for the info re the camera's introduction date. Very interesting.

[ShiningInLuz]

I thought that Hall's "documentary", or whatever one chooses to call it, was supposed to be fact-based? If so, why wasn't the source mentioned?

Is there any particular reason why a bona fide source would choose to remain anonymous concerning weather conditions in late April - early May?

I can think of more than one reason why a source would wish to remain anonymous, and more than one reason why Mr Hall would not name his source, even if his source was OK with being named.

I am aware of more than 1 person in the area who has snippets of info re the case, but the general attitude is they do not wish to get involved.  Hence any contribution would need to be anonymous.

You've seen the mill any significant witness goes through.  Named, hauled to Faro, exposed to the media, questioned by the PJ using questions constructed by OG, OG sitting in, the need for an interpreter to be present, whether the witness speaks Portuguese or not, and with the potential for disclosure of details should the case be archived again.  Hardly a fun time.

[Carana]

I can think of more than one reason why a source would wish to remain anonymous, and more than one reason why Mr Hall would not name his source, even if his source was OK with being named.

I am aware of more than 1 person in the area who has snippets of info re the case, but the general attitude is they do not wish to get involved.  Hence any contribution would need to be anonymous.

You've seen the mill any significant witness goes through.  Named, hauled to Faro, exposed to the media, questioned by the PJ using questions constructed by OG, OG sitting in, the need for an interpreter to be present, whether the witness speaks Portuguese or not, and with the potential for disclosure of details should the case be archived again.  Hardly a fun time.

True.

However, I've also seen how numerous people who just happened to be near or in PdL, or who had some contact with the McCanns or the broader T7 group either then or at any point since then, have had their private / professional lives scrutinised in minute detail by so-called armchair detectives.

What could be so personally invasive concerning a weather report?

Making insinuations about FB contacts or publishing their family / friends photos seems to be in a different league.

[ShiningInLuz]

True.

However, I've also seen how numerous people who just happened to be near or in PdL, or who had some contact with the McCanns or the broader T7 group either then or at any point since then, have had their private / professional lives scrutinised in minute detail by so-called armchair detectives.

What could be so personally invasive concerning a weather report?

Making insinuations about FB contacts or publishing their family / friends photos seems to be in a different league.

Should such a source surface and demonstrate data in stark contrast to the McCanns, such a person would presumably enter into mighty conflict with the McCanns, and would definitely have the spotlight shone on them by the media.

There are some people here who think their life has suffered enough in the last 9 years, and simply wish to get on with the quiet life they had before.

Hopefully, I can forestall any snide remark on the sentence above by pointing out that those not resident in the area have not carried the burden imposed on this locale through no fault of their own.

Finally, the few opinions I have gathered from people resident at the time happen to be, so far, 100% anti-McCann (as opposed to neutral or pro-McCann).  I haven't kept a score of the scurrilous anti-McCann rumours that can be attributed to such locals.  I can think of two off the top of my head, where I'm fairly confident I know the person involved.

The weather chart could be a third such instance.  I don't particularly care, to be honest.

The weather chart, if genuine, is extremely poorly constructed.  The weather chart, if fake, is extremely poorly constructed.  I happen to be of the opinion it is a fake.

[Carana]

Should such a source surface and demonstrate data in stark contrast to the McCanns, such a person would presumably enter into mighty conflict with the McCanns, and would definitely have the spotlight shone on them by the media.

There are some people here who think their life has suffered enough in the last 9 years, and simply wish to get on with the quiet life they had before.

Hopefully, I can forestall any snide remark on the sentence above by pointing out that those not resident in the area have not carried the burden imposed on this locale through no fault of their own.

Finally, the few opinions I have gathered from people resident at the time happen to be, so far, 100% anti-McCann (as opposed to neutral or pro-McCann).  I haven't kept a score of the scurrilous anti-McCann rumours that can be attributed to such locals.  I can think of two off the top of my head, where I'm fairly confident I know the person involved.

The weather chart could be a third such instance.  I don't particularly care, to be honest.

The weather chart, if genuine, is extremely poorly constructed.  The weather chart, if fake, is extremely poorly constructed.  I happen to be of the opinion it is a fake.

This is supposed to be an authentic weather report from PdL in a so-called fact-based documentary. How does that work?

[ShiningInLuz]

This is supposed to be an authentic weather report from PdL in a so-called fact-based documentary. How does that work?

The Crimewatch 2013 special was supposed to be a serious, fact based programme.  Again, I have not tracked all of the major and minor errors so here is just one of each.

Minor.  On the first day the McCanns arrive in Luz with Madeleine going ahead and the parents bring up the rear, pushing the twins in a double buggy.  The McCanns did not have a double buggy at that time.  If they had, perhaps they would have used the Millennium more, making 'planned abduction' much less probable.

Major.  Smithman came down Primary School Street and was then seen heading towards the sea.  No, he wasn't.  He was last seen 2m to Aoife's left when she had reached the top of the Street of Little Stairs.  That allowed Aoife to look left and see him face on.  If the man had headed towards the sea, she would have seen his right profile.

Why did a supposedly serious Crimewatch get such information wrong?  To answer that would take me into the realms of speculation, so I'll leave it at that.

[Mr Gray]

The Crimewatch 2013 special was supposed to be a serious, fact based programme.  Again, I have not tracked all of the major and minor errors so here is just one of each.

Minor.  On the first day the McCanns arrive in Luz with Madeleine going ahead and the parents bring up the rear, pushing the twins in a double buggy.  The McCanns did not have a double buggy at that time.  If they had, perhaps they would have used the Millennium more, making 'planned abduction' much less probable.

Major.  Smithman came down Primary School Street and was then seen heading towards the sea.  No, he wasn't.  He was last seen 2m to Aoife's left when she had reached the top of the Street of Little Stairs.  That allowed Aoife to look left and see him face on.  If the man had headed towards the sea, she would have seen his right profile.

Why did a supposedly serious Crimewatch get such information wrong?  To answer that would take me into the realms of speculation, so I'll leave it at that.

Neither of these social led errors are of any importance whatsoever

[blonk]

strange how if...that photo was took on the Wednesday...

they are wearing the same clothes as the day they arrived...both Maddie and twin

Quite.

Carana wrote:

QUOTE

Whoever posted notes (Albym?) seems to have noted quite a few photos of Madeleine.

The pink tracksuit one is noted as being taken on 2 May, but I'm not sure where that information came from.

The "playground man" pic was taken that day, according to Bruno Press.
http://www.brunopress.nl/bin/Brunopress.dll/go?a=disp&t=sr-loadersearch.html&searchtext=madeleine+mccann+2007

(p. 8 - ref 01256702 and 01256698)

If so, there must have been a bit of sunshine poking through at some point on Wed pm.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm

UNQUOTE

There is absolutely overwhelming evidence that these three photographs were taken late afternoon, Saturday 28th April:

1) Playground photo - Madeleine playing with Madeleine
2) and 3) Madeleine by the Wendy House.

As xtina says, we have the similarities of clothing worn by three people in shot with what they were wearing in the plane journey earlier that day. Plus the scenes, shadows, weather etc. are all wholly consistent with what the McCanns say about their first day (NOTE: Apart from Madeleine allegedly jumping straight into a cold pool).

That only leaves us with two other highly disputed photos of Madelene that week:

1. The Last Photo
2. The Tennis Balls Photo.

Referring back to Carana's post:

A. Albym's note about the photos being on Wednesday is clearly wrong, probably based on something he read elsewhere

B. The Bruno Press were also clearly wrong

C. So was First Magazine wrong to publish false claims by the Boyds that their boy Louie was 'playing football with Madeleine for over an hour', they were whizzing down the waterslide together [there was no waterslide there and Wednesday was cold and rainy anyway]m and that Mrs Boyd and Kate had a chat together.

Putting 2 and 2 together and making 4, it looks as though very early on someone was pushing false information about these three Saturday photos into the media         

[ShiningInLuz]

Neither of these social led errors are of any importance whatsoever

Totally and utterly incorrect.

And since the question was about why a serious programme might makes errors, also totally irrelevant.

[Carana]

There is absolutely overwhelming evidence that these three photographs were taken late afternoon, Saturday 28th April:

1) Playground photo - Madeleine playing with Madeleine
2) and 3) Madeleine by the Wendy House.
 

That "absolutely overwhelming evidence" being... ?

And what is the connection with the "last photo"?

[Alice Purjorick]

for those that haven't realised the fixation with the weather is aimed at debunking hall's video

Oh I rather think he had done that himself partway through Reel 1 before making any proper mention of weather.
The central column of his edifice appears to be sitting on a pocket of running sand.

[Carana]

The Crimewatch 2013 special was supposed to be a serious, fact based programme.  Again, I have not tracked all of the major and minor errors so here is just one of each.

Minor.  On the first day the McCanns arrive in Luz with Madeleine going ahead and the parents bring up the rear, pushing the twins in a double buggy.  The McCanns did not have a double buggy at that time.  If they had, perhaps they would have used the Millennium more, making 'planned abduction' much less probable.

Major.  Smithman came down Primary School Street and was then seen heading towards the sea.  No, he wasn't.  He was last seen 2m to Aoife's left when she had reached the top of the Street of Little Stairs.  That allowed Aoife to look left and see him face on.  If the man had headed towards the sea, she would have seen his right profile.

Why did a supposedly serious Crimewatch get such information wrong?  To answer that would take me into the realms of speculation, so I'll leave it at that.

Wasn't the Crimewatch programme to jog people's memories?

The latest Richard Hall epic seems to be of a different nature.