Page 23 - Faking the original Spare

I am surprised Thomas was satisfied with just an en print as evidence. Taking

a photograph of a photograph 36 times is only proof the photograph Thomas

took was not a fake, but it does not prove the photograph (Giuffre’s Photo-
graph) is not a fake. The date stamp is usually on the negative to prove what

time the photograph was taken. In this case the Kodak Fun Saver 35

disposable negative film camera does not date stamp its negatives.

The photograph was printed on 13th March 2001 proven by the date stamp on

the back of the photograph, However, it does not prove the content is not fake.

Also the back of the photograph could be the back of any photograph; this is
hardly proof.

This clip from The Mail on Sunday’s video displays Thomas photographing
Giuffre’s original print. (Please see Fig. 11.) which displays a boarder;

Therefore Giuffre’s original print was definitely a hand printed photograph

from a darkroom enlarger not a machine printed en print.

Fig. 11. Gabriel-Bird,T. [2023].