Doubts on Mrs Fenn's statement?

I need to go back to basics on this so forgive the question. Who decreed that the exif had been changed and have we got proof of that? If so what was it changed from?

Luna. Just to answer your point. I meant that TB is claiming the content of the photo is genuine but, by changing the data, he is claiming it is false overall. By implication, therefore, he must be thinking that M died earlier but he never actually says that.
Unless, of course, he thinks they changed the date for some other reason, but I can think of no reason to invite scrutiny that could be discovered if it was not to conceal an earlier demise. Can anyone?

I see Bennett is taking screenshots of here and gibbering on

Maybe he could take a screenshot of my post, post it up and answer what he 'suggested' to the McCann lawyers to move forward....

I think everyone would like to know that.

Cheers Tony

chirpyinsect wrote:I need to go back to basics on this so forgive the question. Who decreed that the exif had been changed and have we got proof of that? If so what was it changed from?

Luna. Just to answer your point. I meant that TB is claiming the content of the photo is genuine but, by changing the data, he is claiming it is false overall. By implication, therefore, he must be thinking that M died earlier but he never actually says that.
Unless, of course, he thinks they changed the date for some other reason, but I can think of no reason to invite scrutiny that could be discovered if it was not to conceal an earlier demise. Can anyone?

Good point chirpy. I think this goes all the way back to the first appearance of TLP and the printed claim that the clock in the camera was an hour out. What I find strange about that claim is that there is no visible time/date stamp on the photo, so why mention it at all? The only people who would have seen the time of the photo would have been the photo agency and then anyone who had downloaded it from the internet and looked at the EXIF info. And the police. So mentioning that the clock was an hour out publicly like that pre-anticipated questions being asked about when the photo was taken, and where Madeleine and Gerry were at that time. I think the only reasons TLP surfaced were to try and give Gerry an alibi for a contentious time period, and to try and place Madeleine in that same time and day, thus trying to prove she was alive.

But to get back to your original point. I believe as soon as that time/date discrepancy was mentioned, people looked at the EXIF data and started theorizing about whether or not it could be altered. And it was very quickly discovered that if you had the right software - easily available online - you could indeed alter the time and date stamp without it being detected. And that's where all the discussions started.

Andrew wrote:I see Bennett is taking screenshots of here and gibbering on

His faith in the justice system is surprising. The McCanns have already performed some notable volte-faces regarding their account of events with no apparent sanction. And this photo was only supplied to the press, it didn't form part of the investigation.

It's an interesting thought experiment to consider what the T9 could actually admit to, either implicitly or explicitly, before somebody was moved to make an arrest.

Andrew wrote:I see Bennett is taking screenshots of here and gibbering on

Maybe he could take a screenshot of my post, post it up and answer what he 'suggested' to the McCann lawyers to move forward....

I think everyone would like to know that.

Cheers Tony

He really has a bee in his bonnet about me, doesn't he! I'm tickled that I'm considered so important that he's wasted so much time Canada12-bashing. If I was really that unimportant he'd have long ago stopped mentioning me and moved on - but no, it seems to be vitally necessary to keep bringing me up and arguing with me

unreorganised wrote:

Andrew wrote:I see Bennett is taking screenshots of here and gibbering on

His faith in the justice system is surprising. The McCanns have already performed some notable volte-faces regarding their account of events with no apparent sanction. And this photo was only supplied to the press, it didn't form part of the investigation.

It's an interesting thought experiment to consider what the T9 could actually admit to, either implicitly or explicitly, before somebody was moved to make an arrest.

Well that's just it in regards to the last photo...

If the McCann's came out now and admitted that that particular photo was in fact taken on the Sunday/Monday, then would it actually alter the investigation now in anyway?

Likewise if they came out now and said, 'yes - we photoshopped M into it as we wanted a 'family pic' to release to the press etc', then again would that alter the investigation now in anyway?

Genuine question....

Andrew wrote:

If the McCann's came out now and admitted that that particular photo was in fact taken on the Sunday/Monday, then would it actually alter the investigation now in anyway?

Likewise if they came out now and said, 'yes - we photoshopped M into it as we wanted a 'family pic' to release to the press etc', then again would that alter the investigation now in anyway?

Genuine question....

I don't think it would. They would just claim that the press got the wrong end of the stick, ran with it, and it went too far to be corrected and became an established fact.

I sometimes like to think this kind of thing would make a good episode for a Twilight Zone type series (perhaps there already is such an episode). Somebody commits a terrible crime. Initially they are, maybe not pleased, but relieved to get away with it. Over time the guilt begins to eat them up, or they become incredulous at the apparent incompetence of the Police, or something. So they start dropping little hints. But still nothing happens. And this escalates until, in the final scene, they are standing in the lobby of the Police station screaming "I did it! IT WAS ME!". And everybody just continues going on about their business around them....

I should stick to watching Marillion videos. You know where you are, with Marillion.

Brilliant. Great post

Off topic here but when did I get an picture ? Have I always had one because I've only just noticed it !!!

Candyfloss is the official avatar giver on the forum!

Freedom wrote:Candyfloss is the official avatar giver on the forum!

Thank you to Candyfloss

Andrew wrote:I see Bennett is taking screenshots of here and gibbering on

Maybe he could take a screenshot of my post, post it up and answer what he 'suggested' to the McCann lawyers to move forward....

I think everyone would like to know that.

Cheers Tony

Just giving this a quick bump in case Mr B missed it?

But back to Mrs Fenn.....

I think it's this one (pre-court of course) that he puts great credence on her validity:

Bingo! Good find Andrew. As far as I can see, it wasn't just that TB stopped referring to the parents and stating what he believed happened to M, his whole arguments regarding certain key witnesses have done a volte-face. The Smiths, Mrs Fenn...

A massive volte-face and he's now got an egg-face.

Everything 'changed' for him after the court stuff and the suggestions/agreements with the McLawyers.

Saved himself a small fortune as well.

He's put more work and hours in to discredit key witnesses than anyone.

Says it all in my book.

Anyway looking forward to the Bennett's response when he can find some time to put the knitting needles down.

That  Bennett is piping up and editing posts from here and sticking them up again (yes, I know it's discussed elsewhere).

Has he not got any socks to talk too....


I'm editing posts too Andrew, please no more of that thanks..

Please Andrew don't goad him - it's only likely to lead to another rant about this forum.

I would like a peaceful new year. Thank you!

Sorry. Not goading....

Just asking a genuine and sincere question...

(like elsewhere).

You know that he won't answer though.

Freedom wrote:You know that he won't answer though.

No, he only picks and chooses.

However I want to ask just one simple question to do with this photo stuff.  A decent explanation would be good - but I fear impossible.

If as Mr Bennett and a few others suggest something happened to Madeleine right at the start of the holiday, and all this so called 'evidence' they have, which of course is nothing of the sort apart from speculation, that she according to them died earlier,  How on earth does he explain, (and others he researches with) how all those people acted normally for the rest of the week, playing tennis and taking children to creches etc.  Is he seriously trying to tell us they were all such good actors enjoying their holiday, whilst they knew something terrible had happened to Madeleine.  No chance, it would be impossible for so many to possibly do that, and to say perhaps some didn't know, then how could they explain where Madeleine was?

This is the crux of the whole thing.

candyfloss wrote:

Freedom wrote:You know that he won't answer though.

No, he only picks and chooses.

However I want to ask just one simple question to do with this photo stuff.  A decent explanation would be good - but I fear impossible.

If as Mr Bennett and a few others suggest something happened to Madeleine right at the start of the holiday, and all this so called 'evidence' they have, which of course is nothing of the sort apart from speculation, that she according to them died earlier,  How on earth does he explain, (and others he researches with) how all those people acted normally for the rest of the week, playing tennis and taking children to creches etc.  Is he seriously trying to tell us they were all such good actors enjoying their holiday, whilst they knew something terrible had happened to Madeleine.  No chance, it would be impossible for so many to possibly do that, and to say perhaps some didn't know, then how could they explain where Madeleine was?

This is the crux of the whole thing.

Seeing as this is the Mrs Fenn thread is their speculation on the last photo supposed to throw doubt on Mrs Fenn hearing crying,or that of a child crying,it can never be proven alas because Mrs Fenn is dead,easy target.

Heisenburg wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Freedom wrote:You know that he won't answer though.

No, he only picks and chooses.

However I want to ask just one simple question to do with this photo stuff.  A decent explanation would be good - but I fear impossible.

If as Mr Bennett and a few others suggest something happened to Madeleine right at the start of the holiday, and all this so called 'evidence' they have, which of course is nothing of the sort apart from speculation, that she according to them died earlier,  How on earth does he explain, (and others he researches with) how all those people acted normally for the rest of the week, playing tennis and taking children to creches etc.  Is he seriously trying to tell us they were all such good actors enjoying their holiday, whilst they knew something terrible had happened to Madeleine.  No chance, it would be impossible for so many to possibly do that, and to say perhaps some didn't know, then how could they explain where Madeleine was?

This is the crux of the whole thing.

Seeing as this is the Mrs Fenn thread is their speculation on the last photo supposed to throw doubt on Mrs Fenn hearing crying,or that of a child crying,it can never be proven alas because Mrs Fenn is dead,easy target.

Yes all pertinent to the last photo because it would have proved they were all lying..  I put this here because TB and others can see it without even logging

candyfloss wrote:

Freedom wrote:You know that he won't answer though.

No, he only picks and chooses.

However I want to ask just one simple question to do with this photo stuff.  A decent explanation would be good - but I fear impossible.

If as Mr Bennett and a few others suggest something happened to Madeleine right at the start of the holiday, and all this so called 'evidence' they have, which of course is nothing of the sort apart from speculation, that she according to them died earlier,  How on earth does he explain, (and others he researches with) how all those people acted normally for the rest of the week, playing tennis and taking children to creches etc.  Is he seriously trying to tell us they were all such good actors enjoying their holiday, whilst they knew something terrible had happened to Madeleine.  No chance, it would be impossible for so many to possibly do that, and to say perhaps some didn't know, then how could they explain where Madeleine was?

This is the crux of the whole thing.

We only have their say so that they had a jolly happy time during that week. If you look at what documented "evidence" there is, we see tennis sheets depicting some of them were able to appear on court for an hour at a time. Are these even genuine? We do not know what the mood was like. No one has stated they were laughing and joking the whole lesson so they could have just been going through the motions; playing a part.
I think there was supposed to be a day doing watersports. Where is the independant report of what a hoot they were having? There was one diner ( forget who) who said something about Gerry being the joker or something but I think you could turn on a performance if your life, children and career depended on it.
I'm not therefore, convinced that they couldn't all have acted out a role. When I say all, I mean the ones who were involved from the start. Others may only have had to hide their feelings at the end.

No, I don't agree at all chirpy, no way.  No one would put their children and their livelihoods at risk like that.  Plus we have nannies, cleaners and others who saw her.  Don't forget their were lots of stories in the old days how they played tennis and stuff, lots of stories long since whooshed.  Either they all knew or  not, how would they explain Madeleine not at the crèche, and Madeleine not around to all their friends.  Again it is not possible.

Mitchell Quy who was on the Faking it programme said his missus disappeared Christmas Day, when in fact he had killed her much earlier, but that was just him lying for himself, no one else involved, that is feasible, but not a whole lot of people.

candyfloss wrote:No, I don't agree at all chirpy, no way.  No one would put their children and their livelihoods at risk like that.  Plus we have nannies, cleaners and others who saw her.  Don't forget their were lots of stories in the old days how they played tennis and stuff, lots of stories long since whooshed.  Either they all knew or  not, how would they explain Madeleine not at the crèche, and Madeleine not around to all their friends.  Again it is not possible.

Mitchell Quy who was on the Faking it programme said his missus disappeared Christmas Day, when in fact he had killed her much earlier, but that was just him lying for himself, no one else involved, that is feasible, but not a whole lot of people.

Who would know (of the Tapas lot) that M wasn't in creche? Nannies. Hmm some of their stories are dubious but they were whooshed pdq. Cleaner saw who she took to be M. Yes they played tennis according to the sheets and the coaches but what was the mood? They did their own thing after Sunday so not a lot of opportunity to see M. They may well all have kniwn from the start but I reckon it might have been on a need to know basis until D Day.
I know we don't agree but I respect your opinion.

Having looked over the road this morning, I see Candyfloss has been quoted on her question regarding the likliehood of them being able to act all week if M died earlier. I notice they gleefully scorn her question whilst inferring that this "closed shop" has only one train of thought.
Failing to quote my response only serves their blinkered reasoning. As can clearly be seen, we do have differing schools of thought here. We discuss it reasonably, without fear of ridicule and banning and we try to be respectful most of the time.
Spot the difference.

ETA I am keen to discuss the timeline of events with those who believe it happened on the night. Let's leave aside our suppositions that it is, or isn't, likely and see if we can work out what they would have had to do in order to make it work on the night. I'm not sure if that has been done already but it would be good to go back to basics.
Which thread would be best?