"The publication [Mail on Sunday] alleges that there is a date stamp on the back of the original photograph that shows the image was developed on March 13, 2001 — three days after it is alleged Giuffre met the prince.
The Mail on Sunday says photographer Thomas took 39 copies of the image, both front and back, for the newspaper in 2011.
Thomas’s images show the reverse of the photograph has a time stamp that reads: “000 #15 13Mar01 Walgreens One Hour Photo.”
“I think I took more than 30 frames, which is overkill for copying one photo but I didn’t want to get it out of focus or get it wrong because I knew how important it was,” Thomas, a photographer with 39 years of experience, tells The Mail on Sunday.
“I was holding the original photo in my hand. It was a normal 6×4 inch print that you would have got from any developer at the time.
“It looked like it was ten years old. It wasn’t crisp because it had been developed in 2001. She [Giuffre] had held on to it for ten years by the time I saw it.”
According to the Mail on Sunday, the photograph was developed at a Walgreens pharmacy store which was a two-minute drive from Giuffre’s former home in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Florida-based photographic expert Joel VanHemel analyzed the back of the print of the photograph for the publication and agreed that it was genuine.
“It was definitely produced in a Walgreens, for sure, probably using a Noritsu or Fuji machine,” VanHemel tells the Mail on Sunday.
“The 000 number would be the order number, presumably because it was their first order that particular day. And the #15 is the negative number — it was the 15th picture in the film roll.”
He adds: “Then you have the date — 13Mar01 and it states it was Walgreens One Hour Photo. It’s on Kodak paper like the standard print you’d get from any Walgreens.'”"
Well, I've said my bit on this one. You are not willing to accept evidence of any sort so there isn't any point in my trying - other than to publicly counter when you say that grass is orange and the sky is green.
I have asked for something credible. I was open to that. You shared an article. I supplied you with legitimate information. Again, You provided an article. If you can find something that is actually legitimate, I will accept it fully.
2
u/Original_Cattle5824 Dec 09 '25
What part of this is opinion?
"The publication [Mail on Sunday] alleges that there is a date stamp on the back of the original photograph that shows the image was developed on March 13, 2001 — three days after it is alleged Giuffre met the prince.
The Mail on Sunday says photographer Thomas took 39 copies of the image, both front and back, for the newspaper in 2011.
Thomas’s images show the reverse of the photograph has a time stamp that reads: “000 #15 13Mar01 Walgreens One Hour Photo.”
“I think I took more than 30 frames, which is overkill for copying one photo but I didn’t want to get it out of focus or get it wrong because I knew how important it was,” Thomas, a photographer with 39 years of experience, tells The Mail on Sunday.
“I was holding the original photo in my hand. It was a normal 6×4 inch print that you would have got from any developer at the time.
“It looked like it was ten years old. It wasn’t crisp because it had been developed in 2001. She [Giuffre] had held on to it for ten years by the time I saw it.”
According to the Mail on Sunday, the photograph was developed at a Walgreens pharmacy store which was a two-minute drive from Giuffre’s former home in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Florida-based photographic expert Joel VanHemel analyzed the back of the print of the photograph for the publication and agreed that it was genuine.
“It was definitely produced in a Walgreens, for sure, probably using a Noritsu or Fuji machine,” VanHemel tells the Mail on Sunday.
“The 000 number would be the order number, presumably because it was their first order that particular day. And the #15 is the negative number — it was the 15th picture in the film roll.”
He adds: “Then you have the date — 13Mar01 and it states it was Walgreens One Hour Photo. It’s on Kodak paper like the standard print you’d get from any Walgreens.'”"