Chapter 67
The Pool Photo revisited - YET AGAIN
Now that a little of the dust has settled after Bernt Stellander’s forensic re-evaluation of the incidents and activities, and of the written statements and things said and written subsequently about the night of Wednesday 2nd May 2007 and the early hours of Thursday 3rd May 2007, the issue of the ‘Pool Photo’ and the discussion around it from 15 years ago has reemerged as potentially an important element in the discussions.
My previous research was spread over several Chapters, published well over a decade ago and one more recent short commentary, all of which picked away at individual aspects, contained inevitable mistakes, irrelevance and red herrings, subsequently revealed and identified as such by acute observers whom I thank, or by me as I tried to develop the issues further.
So now I am offering an edited and amalgamated summary version which I hope will help identify the salient points.
I shall rely on extensive References to the previous chapters, and Appendices – including some material new to the e-book – to keep the text as compact as it may reasonably be.
REF 1
The PHOTO
The Pool Photo, also known by Kate McCann as the LAST PHOTO was published to the world by Clarence Mitchell – newly appointed spokesman for the McCanns by the British Government – via the French Press Agency, AFP (Agence France-Presse) on Thursday 24th May 2007, exactly three weeks after the report of the disappearance.
It had therefore been ‘sent’ to them and received on Wednesday 23rd May, but released on 24/5/7. Keep this date in mind
The photo itself is a very large image. 25MB. Taken by Kate McCann on the family’s Canon Powershot 7MP. (Mega pixel) camera.
NOTE: One pixel requires 3 bytes of memory to record the three colours, and the image as whole includes the metadata, which together add up to the 25 MegaByte quoted
REF 2
The CLAIM
In her book ‘Madeleine’ Kate McCann gives a full description of the events
“5 MISSING
On Thursday 3 May I awoke in the children’s bedroom” [. . .]
“ As the children were getting quite restless in the apartment we decided to get them out in the fresh air before the afternoon’s activities. We went to the play area, which was such a hit with our three that they never seemed to get fed up with it. We then sat round the toddler pool for a while, dipping our feet in, and I took what has turned out to be my last photograph to date of Madeleine. Heartbreaking…”
REF 3
IN the explanatory note attached to the photo from AFP, and therefore ultimately traceable back to Mitchell and the McCann parents are the words
“Picture released by the McCann family 24 May 2007 and was taken 03 May 2007, the same day Madeleine McCann(R) went missing from the family’s holiday apartment in the southern Algarve region. The photo also shows Madeleine’s father Gerry and sister Amelie. Madeleine was abducted as she slept with her brother and sister in a hotel apartment at the Ocean club Resort while her parents dined at a nearby restaurant.”
The time is shown as “May 3, 2007, 1:29:51 pm
REF 4
Mitchell went on camera and repeated the assertion about the time of the photo, wanting people to correct it to 1429, because the camera’s internal clock had not been altered to Portuguese time – or possible Summer Time, it was unclear which, and giving too much information in the style which became something of a Trademark throughout this investigation. Portugal and the UK are in the same time zone, so what Mitchell may have been doing was simply forcing people to look at the new date.
When the full photo was released to the internet it became possible for anyone to access the full EXIF Metadata. This shows the date of creation as 3/5/7.
The EVIDENCE for the Claim
All digital photos carry within their information what is known as the EXIF Metadata.
EXIF stands for Exchangeable Image File and is a string of data showing time and date of the image, sometimes the location and then many pages of highly technical details of the settings adopted by the camera itself to record the image.
On all cameras it is possible to display the time and date on the image itself both on the screen and when printed, but this is still recorded even if not shown
Supporting EVIDENCE for the Claim
A secondary, peripheral but potentially important source of corroborative evidence came from a little known “women’s hairdresser waiting room‘ style magazine, written by one Danielle Guzmaroli, who had allegedly interviewed at length a family, the mother of which had been with Kate McCann as they sat by the pool on sun-loungers together watching Madeleine playing football for an hour and then ‘whizzing down a waterslide’ whilst wearing a blue dress – on Thursday 3rd May 2007.
Even the most hardened and loyal McCann supporters cannot help but see that this was total nonsense, and in Chapter 39 I exposed this whole thing as a fraud and a lie.
It bears no relation to anything the McCann parents alleged. There is no waterslide, and the whole thing was confirmed by the innocent ‘victim’, Mrs B, to be a complete fabrication.
Guzmaroli and I exchanged emails where I put this to her, and I wrote to her editor.
A short time later Guzmaroli left that publishing company and migrated to Australia, where she continued as a Gutter Press tabloid journalist for another cheek of the Murdoch empire
The article in question was published on . . . 24th May 2007 – the date on which the photo was released by AFP
The article was pure invention, but with details included which can only have been fed to Guzmaroli by someone else – most notably a repetition of what we now know to be the totally false and invented weather conditions of that day. Other examples are obvious. Who that might be has not yet been established, but it is clear that this was not a coincidence. It was planned and ‘dictated’.
See Chapter. 39
REF 5
The INITIAL CONTROVERSY
As soon as the image was published it was subject to scrutiny.
One group held that it was a composite image, and argued that Madeleine had been “Photoshopped IN’, that shadows had been superimposed, and various other manipulations had been involved.
Serious and difficult questions were raised about the angle of the reflection in Gerry McCann’s sunglasses which showed a vertical line, rather than the (for them) expected horizontal one.
Other groups suggested that Gerry himself and Amelie had been photoshopped IN and the two main sides fought it out without denting the other’s stance for several months of fruitless and increasingly ad hominem argument. Each side adopted the normal internet stance of being “Instant Expert”
No one suggested the obvious solution. To ask someone who very obviously IS. (See later)
REF 6
EXAMINATION of the PHOTO
The original photo, in its full size with all the EXIF attached was uploaded to the web
It was cumbersome and impossible to send by conventional email in the first decade of the 21st C, when the limit was, and for many purposes remains 5MB, and indeed only by using Airdrop. One Drive, dropBox, iCloud or other sorcery can it be done even today. What can, and could then be done, was to send people the internet address so it may be downloaded. As I do in the references.
The photo shows bright sunshine, clear and sharp shadows, a sheen of perspiration on Gerry’s forehead, children in sun hats, clearly a HOT and cloudless day.. The sun is high in the sky, the shadows are short. It is ‘lunchtime’.
REF 7
The RESEARCH
First research.
I sent the image (= the reference) to two people who specialise in digital images, with an explanation of what the image purported to be and a question about whether they could detect whether it had been ‘interfered with, photoshopped added to or subtracted from” and a request for any other useful information they could offer.
One was Hany Farid, then Dean and Head of School of Information at the University of California, Berkley, and now Professor, who specialises in the analysis of digital images and the detection of digitally manipulated images such as deepfakes. He was at that time leading the teams who wrote programmes like Adobe Photoshop, and a decade and a half later is presenting workshops on identifying ‘AI’ photos and videos. Some of these may be found on YouTube
REF 8
The other was the son of a friend who for reasons of anonymity I will not identify, but who led a professional team in a photographic image company who were involved in REMOVING items from photos and crucially from commercial advertising Videos. One contract was to take footage of a car being driven in the small road between two “Dark Satanic Mills” in Manchester and being covered in brightly coloured paint, and remove all traces of the gantries, hoses, nozzles and pumps. Not just one picture, but in every ‘frame’ of the video which lasted many advertising seconds. They were expert craftspersons. And all this was done long before ‘AI’ was available to assist.
Both independently confirmed that there was no evidence of photoshopping or of manipulation of the image itself. There were normal compression artefacts observable at high magnification. Neither, also independently, could see anything strange about shadow angles or reflected images,
Both however drew attention to the ease with which the EXIF Metadata, specifically the date, time and place, and the text attached to it could be edited.
[As a matter of record this can now be done in any iPhone, by simply opening the image and accessing the metadata.]
REF 9
Subsequent research
Having established that the photo itself was not an issue we looked at the EXIF, and specifically at the Time and Date which had been flagged up by the professionals.
The photo shows bright and hot sunshine, from a clear sky, and therefore itself suggested the obvious question. What was the weather on 3/5/7 ? Did it match the photo ?
We looked at Kate’s book, we looked at first hand diary entries from local residents, we looked at statements and Rogatory transcripts, we looked at contemporaneous video of local events, and we looked at weather reports, METAR data, and then at EUMET Satellite images. NOT ONE matched the weather in the Pool Photo.
Chapter 28 goes into this in some detail and the conclusions of each of the sections follow:
On Thursday 3rd May 0.9 hours (54 minutes) of sun were recorded over the entire day
At lunchtime on Thursday 3rd May the sky was overcast - with 2 levels of cloud
For most of Thursday 3rd May the sky over the land was overcast
They confirm what we already know from the METAR and the Sunshine data –
From 30th April to 3rd May a weather front passed over Portugal, bringing cold and
cloudy conditions, only moving away late on Thursday 3rd May
For most of Thursday 3rd May the sky was overcast and the day was cold
From late evening of Thursday 3rd and on Friday 4th May the weather improved
REF 10 AND APP 1
Even Kate gives the game away in one sentence in her book.
“The weather was a little on the cool side and I remember thinking I should have brought a cardigan for her, although she seemed oblivious of the temperature, just happy and carefree.”
BUT
[repeated from paragraph supra]. when we look at the photo we see bright sunshine, clear and sharp shadows, a sheen of perspiration on Gerry’s forehead, children in sun hats, clearly a HOT and cloudless day. The sun is high in the sky, the shadows are short. It is ‘lunchtime’.
AND
“Some images are etched for all time on my brain. Madeleine that lunchtime is one of them. She was wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday: a peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon”
There is NO mention of a white sun hat with pink stars, even though Kate had access to the photo when she wrote her book 4 years later
REF 11
Quote from Chapter 12 , ‘Pool photo, sun hats and flapping curtains’,
QUOTE “ When we consider the Last Photo we must ask the following questions.
What do we SEE What do we KNOW and then What can we DEDUCE ?
We see
Shadows have sharp outlines Shadows more or less vertical
Bright reflection from human skin Bright reflection from objects
Sheen of perspiration on Gerry's forehead
Children in very light dress Children in sun hats
Gerry wearing very dark sunglasses Gerry wearing T shirt and shorts
Bright and sharp reflection in sunglasses Father and children with feet in the water”
END
It has also been suggested that the pale skins in the Pool photo compared with photos of the couple taken the following week that show them more tanned are evidence that it was taken early in the holiday, for which there is only one possible day.
What we KNOW and DEDUCE is set out in Chapter 12, but to summarise:–
REF 12
First CONCLUSION
The Pool Photo was NOT taken at lunchtime on Thursday 3rd May 2007.
It was – without a shadow of doubt – taken at lunchtime on Sunday 29th April 2007
We can go as far as to say with considerable certainty –
It cannot possibly have been taken on any other day during that week
Which means that the EXIF Metadata must have been altered before it was published to the world with the false information included and also spelled out in the commentary.
The Photo therefore “tells a lie about itself”, which is the classic and oft repeated explanation to a Jury by the judge during a summing-up of what constitutes a Forgery.
The photo is effectively saying to everyone “Look at me. I was taken on Thursday 3rd May”, and wanting you to believe it, when that is untrue.
Uttering a forgery is itself a crime, using a forgery in litigation is a serious crime, and using it to obtain financial gain is Fraud (previously called ‘Obtaining money by deception’)
Further information, gained more recently,
After Bernt's interview with James English he was contacted by a private investigator who had interviewed a cleaner at the OC in the bar there on 25/5/7. She had told him about the man she saw leaving Apt 5a before 2 am on Thursday 3/5/7 carrying a very heavy black sack or bag, and stated she had also seen him by the pool on Sunday, with HIS three children, which is when this photo was clearly taken. That is a statement given after three weeks of her having seen Gerry's face on TV and the front page of every paper and magazine, and is of course direct evidence rather than deduction.
Second CONCLUSION “who Dun it ?”
The timing of this has been worked over and established, we believe beyond a reasonable doubt. The image was too large to be sent by any Email system available in 2007
It therefore had to be extracted from the McCanns’ camera onto a memory stick, and physically transported to a location where it could be downloaded to a computer, the EXIF altered and reloaded by the person detailed to do this, and then physically taken back to the McCanns in PdL.
We believe, again with reasonable certainty, that we have identified the people involved. All of them close family members.
REF 14
Logical EXTENSION
The fact of the forgery to attempt to prove life at 1427 3/5/7 paradoxically is capable of providing proof of death.
Follow me in this logical sequence
- The Pool Photo starts as an irrelevance. It was treated as such by DCI Amaral.
- It shows the family in the children’s pool at lunchtime on Sunday 29/4/7
- It adds NOTHING to the investigation of an abduction on the evening of Thursday 3/5/7
- Madeleine was said by Kate and Gerry to have been alive at 2030 as they left
- Madeleine was said by Gerry to have been alive at 2110 as he did his visit
- The altered date on the photo attempts to show her alive at lunch on Thursday 3/5/7 and therefore it is still technically irrelevant to events at 2125 3/5/7
So why did they choose lunchtime on Thursday 3/5/7 ?
To overstate the point
- If they had said it was taken at lunch on Sunday – irrelevant
- If they had said it was taken at lunch on Monday – irrelevant
- If they had said it was taken at lunch on Tuesday – irrelevant
- If they had said it was taken at lunch on Wednesday – irrelevant
And then the big leap
- They said it was taken at lunch on Thursday – but it is still irrelevant
BUT: –>. There is one scenario in which it does assume importance.
And that is when a crusty and highly experienced DCI is openly beginning to question the entire story of Abduction between 2120 and 2125, and is moving towards an investigation into an earlier death in the apartment, and when they knew by then that two of the witnesses who had promised to help had in fact fouled up the situation beyond all recovery. And that the third was of even less use,
Tanner had messed up her story so badly by saying she passed the two men on the narrow pavement on the west side of the road, when Gerry insists the east, and then apparently being unclear about the direction of travel of her ‘suspect’, before giving such an utterly useless and garbled description that the detectives dismissed what she was saying at an early stage.
Oldfield, the one person on whom the McCanns were relying to corroborate both their testimonies that Madeleine was alive and well after 2100, as an intelligent man realised at the last minute the impossible, invidious and legally dangerous situation into which the McCanns had attempted to trap him as “the last person to see her alive” and decided not to carry on.
He refused to be compromised, but his attempts to extricate himself from the dreadful situation into which they had placed him, whilst trying to protect the McCanns, and without actually telling the whole truth are terrible to read. We may empathise with the mental contortions he had to employ.
REF 14
4/5/7. “At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping”.
REF 15
10/5/7. “That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. [. . .]
Following on, convinced that everything was within normality, given that he perceived no noise to make him think otherwise, and further, due to, in his mind, having managed to glimpse the two twins inside their cots, the deponent returned to the restaurant to finish dinner.
Asked, he clarifies to not have seen MBM lying on the bed in the bedroom because from where he was during the check he had no sight of that bed.
[My note: what noise do dead children make? From what do you deduce that a child is asleep. Or even present ? How can you NOT see a child on a bed that you can’t see ?]
REF 16
The Rogatory is even more painful, It was recorded on 9th April 2008, over 11 months after the “event’, We can only imagine the mental torture he had suffered over that time, which may continue to this day.
9/4/8
“Reply 'Erm, and there's another bed along here, which is where Madeleine was supposed to be, erm, and you could just maybe catch the, it was probably set back a little bit, so you could just sort of catch about sort of six or eight inches of the, so you could see the outside corner, the corner deepest into the room'.
4078 'Okay. So concentrate, if you can, on what you saw of that bed and tell me what you saw’'
Reply 'Nothing, apart from that, it's just the end of the bed and that's, and that was it. And so it was just like the outside corner, there was no, couldn't see the whole length, couldn't see colours or legs or anything draping over it'.
4078 'Did it have bed clothing on it, can you remember, or was it just a plain mattress or some sort of mattress cover or (inaudible), can you remember’'
Reply 'Erm, my, erm, this would be sort of a guess, I think what I could see was a sheet and I think it was a metal base coming round the corner, but I couldn't swear to that. There was only a small bit that was visible'.
4078 ‘Okay'.
Reply 'I don't think it was a bare, a bare mattress, I'm fairly sure there'd have been a sheet on it, but I don't remember anything sort of as bulky as a duvet over it’.
4078 'Okay. And is there anything else you can say about what you saw of that bed’'
Reply 'No, erm, I don't remember there being a pattern on it, it was, it was just sort of a glimpse and I don't know how reliable my memory is for this, I think it was plain coloured, maybe, if I was to go for it, I'd say it was sort of a light blue, but I really don't recall anything specific about the end of that bed, apart from just registering that there was a bed against that wall and that's probably where Madeleine was'.
REF 17
Oldfield is a Consultant endocrinologist with a child of his own.
He is talking about a metal framed bed, and considers the possibility that there were no bedclothes on Madeleine’s bed, and that she had been put to sleep on a bare mattress.
This is a photo of the bed
Made up (allegedly already slept in !) and stripped
It is a “divan” bed, with NO Metal frame. Also no place under which to look, as Kate in her book insisted she did.
And this is the view Oldfield is trying to describe, with the end of Madeleine’s bed showing on the left.
[Note; the door is open to the right, against the wall, and reveals the end of the built-in wardrobe on the wall on the right. Madeleine’s bed is on the left. It was suggested at one stage that the ‘abductor’ might even have been hiding behind the door during Gerry’s check. “Flatman” did not survive as a theory for very long, but it illustrates the lengths to which they were prepared to go to defend the indefensible.]
REF 18
From here he says he can make out the twins breathing, and ‘deduced’ that Madeleine was in bed (and alive ). I repeat, Oldfield is a Consultant, a husband, and a father.
He was in a deadly trap, and we can understand the level of stress evident in his statements, and the consequent nonsense of his testimony and the incoherence and loss of syntax normal for educated people.
REF 19
Payne is in the difficult position of directly contradicting Kate’s ‘official’ version of the alleged visit during the evening tennis. They cannot agree on whether he entered the apartment (DP) or stood in the doorway (KM), whether he was there for 30 minutes (DP) or 30 seconds (KM). Details such as Kate emerging naked and dripping from the shower, or already dry and wrapped in a towel are largely irrelevant given the gross mismatches.
His description of the children is so embellished and exaggerated as to be valueless, and to suggest something else.
REF 20
So by the end of week 1 the McCanns realise their ‘official’ story is falling to pieces, that the PJ team led by DCI Amaral are just not going to go away, that their three witnesses are useless or worse, and they become desperate.
They had probably also realised that since there were no REAL witnesses to her having been alive on 3/5/7, for the obvious reason, and the people who would say that they had seen Madeleine alive – even if they did – would firmly put the date at Wednesday 2/5/7 or earlier in the week, that they were in a very serious situation.
They must have realised therefore that the true date and time of Madeleine’s death was about to be uncovered. So they came up with the idea of forging the date on the Pool Photo in the hope of forcing the PJ, BritPol, journalists, the Press and media of the world to focus on 2130 Thursday 3/5/7, and on no other date or time, or possibility.
And this despite the risk of discovery, and despite the need to compromise and involve as accessories in a conspiracy more members of the close family and the newly issued Government spokesman Mitchell. His first task was to contact the Press and to Lie. His subsequent assignments for all the years he served the McCanns was to Lie. Whether he knew that his first contact with the Press was mendacious is not known, though having served Governments is it certainly likely.
It was a pre-emptive strike. Getting their defence in first. Trying perhaps to fill what they perceived as gaps in the story, but in so doing falling into the trap of giving “too much information”, a give-away known to all detectives and interviewers, and seen much later in reply to the question from Rahni Sadler “Did you kill your daughter ?”, which instead of a single word or short phrase of denial, elicited a 151 word barely coherent ‘stream of consciousness’, followed by a 49 word totally unnecessary supplementary from Kate. Grammar and syntax break down very quickly under stress like this.
See REF 21 and APP 2
BUT it worked. For the past 18 years and to this day the Media still open any news bulletin or discussion with “Abduction, from her bed, on 3/5/7, whilst the parents were dining a few yards away”, for which as we have been pointing out for those same 18 years there is not one scrap of evidence, not invented nor even planted, which after this length of time and the intervention of five bogus Private Detective Agencies paid for by the “Fund” is quite remarkable.
Let us resume the logical progression . . .
- We now know that the Photo does NOT Prove she was alive at lunch on Thursday 3/5/7 and that therefore they were lying about this.
- But given what we see argued above, the Fact of the Forgery to support that lie is capable at the very least of being interpreted as powerful evidence in favour of the proposition that she was already Dead by then . . . Because . . .
Otherwise there would have been absolutely no point to the whole charade
When we now add this to the reinterpretation of existing evidence and the addition of new facts revealed by Bernt Stellander in his book “The Sudden Impulse” which focuses on evidence pointing clearly and persuasively to a death during the evening of Wednesday 2/5/7 and the discovery and sequestration of the body during the early hours of Thursday 3/5/7, after their well attested late return from the Tapas bar, it all begins to fit even more neatly than before.
REF 22
It further follows that not only the Parents knew of this.
All those complicit in the forgery and its publication with the bogus information – Sister Philomena, Uncle Tony Rickwood, and in all probability Clarence Mitchell . . . all who knew or suspected, those who withheld evidence or deliberately distorted it, those who remained silent and those gave false testimony are implicated in a Criminal Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice and are accessories to a 18 year long Fraud on the British public and on successive Governments, successive Commissioners of the MetPol, Senior Judges conducting public enquiries and many others, at a cost to the British public purse of £13 million purely for Operation Grange, and countless millions elsewhere.
Kate McCann’s LAST PHOTO may turn out not to be their ‘Fortuna’
but their “Nemesis’
CHAPTER 67
REFERENCES
2 http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/gestalt-3AsTheKTPHorg.jpg
And at
3 Madeleine, by Kate McCann, 2011, Bantam Press,
McCann, Kate. Madeleine (p. 65). Transworld Digital. Kindle Edition.
4
6 Explanation of vertical reflection in sunglasses
www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2ZhyjTG3SU
8 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hany_Farid
https://www.youtube.com/@hanyfarid5019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVWRfFY9KPA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5_PrTvNypY
9 “You can change a photo's date, time, or location metadata in the iPhone's built-in Photos app by opening the photo, tapping the info button (i), and then tapping "Adjust" next to the information you want to change. You can also adjust the date, time, or location for multiple photos at once by tapping "Select," choosing the photos, and then using the "Share" button to find the "Adjust" options.
google ; “Is there a way to change the Metadata of an iPhone picture …"
Open the pic in Photos, click the 3 dots, choose Adjust Date & Time and set the new date. Close image and reopen
10 for discussion of Weather during the week see
Also See Appendix 1.1 and 1.2
11 McCann, Kate. Madeleine (p. 65). Transworld Digital. Kindle Edition.
14 “.. the last person KNOWN to see them alive is usually the one who did it. Most people are killed by people they know. Generally an average of 21-27% of homicides are committed by strangers. If someone's killer is a person they know, that logically increases the chances of some sort of evidence supporting being the last person they were known to see (maybe someone saw them drive off together, maybe there's text evidence of plans to meet, etc). A lot of children are killed by their parents and a lot of wives are killed by their husbands, which significantly increases the chance of their killer being the last person known to see them alive - these are cases of people who usually live in the same house.” [edited]
AI Overview
The "last person to see someone alive" is often a key person of interest in a police investigation, and the first person police will typically seek to interview in a missing person or homicide case. This is because, under the assumption that the victim was alive and well at their last known contact, this person can provide crucial information about the victim's state of mind, any plans they had, and the circumstances leading up to the disappearance or death.
- Investigation starting point: Police investigations into a crime usually start by focusing on the people closest to the victim, with the "last person to see them alive" being the most logical starting point.
- Crucial information: This person can provide critical details like the victim's mood, any threats they were facing, or their immediate plans, which can help determine if they left willingly or were taken against their will.
- Focus on the inner circle: Law enforcement often begins with the victim's inner circle, like family, friends, or partners, and then expands the investigation if there is no compelling evidence to suggest foul play at the outset.
15 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD.htm
16 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-10MAY.htm
17 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm
18 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_PHOTO_REPORT.htm
19 https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9894434/
Truth or lie: Exploring the language of deception
“To date, many studies have attempted to capture the differences between true and false statements. These differences may be related to specific types of emotions experienced by liars, cognitive processes occurring while lying, and self-presentation strategies to control behavior by liars. According to the emotional approach, lying can trigger emotions such as excitement, fear, and guilt. They can influence the behavior of a liar and how they speak, e.g., by increasing the use of words with emotional tones or negations. The cognitive approach emphasizes that lying is more cognitively demanding than telling the truth. It requires the involvement of working memory, cognitive control, and shifting attention This cognitive load may be visible in how a liar speaks (e.g., slower speech pace, mistakes) and also in how they construct false statements, which may be simpler and shorter than true statements. Finally, according to the self-presentation approach proposed by DePaulo et al. liars are less direct than truth-tellers out of concern for their own image; they distance themselves more from the lies they utter and provide fewer details.”
20 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
21 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voIfVTSxjSo
22 The Sudden Impulse, by Bernt Stellander (Author) 2024. Modocromia
also in Kindle edition
Chapter 67. Appendices 1.1 and 1.2
If, and only if any of this is correct, of course !