Another look at the Last photo

I would like to know who the girl is in the tennis photo as it looks nothing like the Madeleine in the pool photo,

j.rob wrote:

PeterMac wrote:I have just had another go at cropping the "original' image to select only Madeleine, perhaps for a poster ?

You can get this - totally unretouched. No elbow, no brother's leg, just Madeleine.

" />

So why did they feel the need to select a bigger bit and photoshop it for the PowerPoint presentation in Brussels, or wherever

" />

And why did they select this one for the Missing Posters

" />

I can think of only one coherent reason,  but there may of course be others.

(Oh, and by the way the top photo was taken on a cloudy day in a Force 4 WNW wind, at 19ºC  !  Just thought you would like to know.)

That 'missing' poster is an absolute disgrace. I have seen more care put into a poster for a missing cat.

Madeleine was very nearly four years old. Much closer to four years old than three years old. So it is deceptive. There is a huge difference between a three and four year old child. 

And the 'missing' photograph is clearly of a child younger than a nearly four year. So it is completely misleading. Plus she looks different and much younger than the photo allegedly taken on the last day.

No telephone number included even on the 'poster'. Gee - they really wanted to 'find' her, didn't they? Even to the extent of inventing a colomba when she didn't have one. As later admitted. In her passport the eye 'defect' is described as 'fleks'.

It looks like the sort of notice you would find if someone had left a pair of spectacles in the restaurant and was hoping that someone might hand them in to reception the next day.

"That 'missing' poster is an absolute disgrace. I have seen more care put into a poster for a missing cat."

This has really troubled me too. Have you noticed the rounded dots over the 'i's.

Where is hobs for analysis ?

When I am making a frilly birthday card for a grandchild I might playfully put big circles instead of dots for the 'i's.

For an adult to write like that (and I presume it was an adult looking at the 'a' and the 'r') it is very childish and full of affectation.

Hardly, in my opinion, someone who has lost a child and is in a state of shock or panic.

Pre-planned from the start and very badly and unconvincingly played out, IMO of course.

j.rob wrote:But good point, petermac. Why didn't they use the alleged 'last photo' of Madeleine for the poster and just crop out everyone else ?
Hmmmm.

On any test the cropped bit is far better.
It is more lively, and half face is much better than full, since yo get some idea of overall shape and so on.
As others are saying, no phone number, no "Contact Ocean Club reception or a police officer"
No name given - so people cannot walk the street calling to her.
Nothing.
"Answers to the name tiddles'" is fairly normal for a cat poster. Here, nothing.
And just to add, on 2nd May it rained.

bobbin wrote:

j.rob wrote:

PeterMac wrote:I have just had another go at cropping the "original' image to select only Madeleine, perhaps for a poster ?

You can get this - totally unretouched. No elbow, no brother's leg, just Madeleine.

" />

So why did they feel the need to select a bigger bit and photoshop it for the PowerPoint presentation in Brussels, or wherever

" />

And why did they select this one for the Missing Posters

" />

I can think of only one coherent reason,  but there may of course be others.

(Oh, and by the way the top photo was taken on a cloudy day in a Force 4 WNW wind, at 19ºC  !  Just thought you would like to know.)

That 'missing' poster is an absolute disgrace. I have seen more care put into a poster for a missing cat.

Madeleine was very nearly four years old. Much closer to four years old than three years old. So it is deceptive. There is a huge difference between a three and four year old child. 

And the 'missing' photograph is clearly of a child younger than a nearly four year. So it is completely misleading. Plus she looks different and much younger than the photo allegedly taken on the last day.

No telephone number included even on the 'poster'. Gee - they really wanted to 'find' her, didn't they? Even to the extent of inventing a colomba when she didn't have one. As later admitted. In her passport the eye 'defect' is described as 'fleks'.

It looks like the sort of notice you would find if someone had left a pair of spectacles in the restaurant and was hoping that someone might hand them in to reception the next day.

"That 'missing' poster is an absolute disgrace. I have seen more care put into a poster for a missing cat."

This has really troubled me too. Have you noticed the rounded dots over the 'i's.

Where is hobs for analysis ?

When I am making a frilly birthday card for a grandchild I might playfully put big circles instead of dots for the 'i's.

For an adult to write like that (and I presume it was an adult looking at the 'a' and the 'r') it is very childish and full of affectation.

Hardly, in my opinion, someone who has lost a child and is in a state of shock or panic.

Pre-planned from the start and very badly and unconvincingly played out, IMO of course.

As I wrote earlier on in this thread, there are 6 major differences between the solo and the last picture, being;

No GM elbow
More wall
Amelie's left arm
Shadow cast from the sun lounger on the grass that touches MBM's hat
More flagstones
White pool edge under MBM's left hand

Even on Peter Mac's expertly cropped version 2 differences remain

Pool edge
Sun lounger shadow

The solo photo has to be the thing that is dropped into the last photo. How else could the 6 above items have been removed or convincingly inserted into the solo picture.

PeterMac wrote:I have just had another go at cropping the "original' image to select only Madeleine, perhaps for a poster ?

You can get this - totally unretouched. No elbow, no brother's leg, just Madeleine.

" />

So why did they feel the need to select a bigger bit and photoshop it for the PowerPoint presentation in Brussels, or wherever

" />

And why did they select this one for the Missing Posters

" />

I can think of only one coherent reason,  but there may of course be others.

(Oh, and by the way the top photo was taken on a cloudy day in a Force 4 WNW wind, at 19ºC  !  Just thought you would like to know.)

PeterMac, if that missing poster photo of Madeleine in her spotty top was taken at the holiday apartment, then I can't find a photo of a chair/settee in the apartment to match the position of the chair/settee she is sitting on (against the wall) which might suggest the furniture had been moved by  the time the PJ photos were taken...that's if the spotty top photo was taken in the apartment of course.

And just to add, even if the cushions were removed from the settee in the living room would the back be higher than the armrest as the photo of Madeleine makes it appear?

SallyVern wrote:
PeterMac, if that missing poster photo of Madeleine in her spotty top was taken at the holiday apartment, then I can't find a photo of a chair/settee in the apartment to match the position of the chair/settee she is sitting on (against the wall) which might suggest the furniture had been moved by  the time the PJ photos were taken...that's if the spotty top photo was taken in the apartment of course.
And just to add, even if the cushions were removed from the settee in the living room would the back be higher than the armrest as the photo of Madeleine makes it appear?

I don't think it was. Her hair is, I think, significantly shorter, - not anywhere near the shoulder - her face is more babylike and chubby, she looks the young end of 3, rather then a few days from 4.
So this picture was probably on the Olympus C-50, handed first to the tapas person and later to the UK pol (with 72 pictures erased from the memory card - as you do !)
The Last Photo was on the Canon, not handed to the PJ, but produced as if by magic three weeks later by the French Agency. (Why not the Press Agency ?)
ALSO
What happened to the video camera sent to Hampshire ?
Anyone know. It seems to have been whooshed.

Yes, bobbin. Pre-planned and incredibly badly acted out. I wonder if a nanny wrote this? Someone very young and not particularly bright either. It is indeed very childish writing with the affectation of the circles as dots for the 'i's which is so inappropriate given the alleged circumstances. You would almost expect to find a smiley at the end of it, so glib is the message. (As always with TM, a graphologist would have a field-day.)  But would be very interesting to know who wrote this as whoever it was appears to be remarkably unphased about it all.

 The wording is extraordinary. Very impersonal and reveals very little useful information.

Missing


3 YRS
from last 
night.

Please Contact

Luz Ocean
Club

----------

From the way it is written it is as though the child photographed has been missing for three years from (since) last night.

You would expect a phrase like 'Nearly four year old girl' And then the name Madeleine. 

Or 'Madeleine - nearly four years old.' Otherwise, how can any adult who finds her know how to make sure it is the right child?

But instead there is the incredibly impersonal '3 YRS'. As though Madeleine is nothing more than a period of time - and a wrong period of time at that.

'from last night' is incredibly vague and does not follow on logically from the '3 YRS'. The use of the word 'from' suggests that what will follow will be the location of where Madeleine went missing. Which is vital information - crucial. Yet not there.

So, for instance, "from Apartment 5A, (Mark Warner) Ocean Club Resort. Luz."

So, apart from being inexplicably vague, as it fails to give a time-frame for when Madeleine is thought to have gone missing, it also fails to say where exactly she went missing from.


Then there is the bright and breezy 'please contact' with not an ounce of urgency. More an invitation for someone to pop along if they have the inclination. Once they have looked up the address and telephone number of course.

Then we have:
'Luz Ocean
Club'

No mention of Mark Warner Holidays. No address. No emergency telephone number. No person to contact. So I guess whoever finds Madeleine has just got get out the telephone directory or go on the internet to find the telephone number. And go through to general reception while the receptionist deals with restaurant and hotel bookings.

Extraordinary!

What you might expect would be:

Urgent

Missing 

Nearly 4 year old girl.

Her name is Madeleine

Last seen asleep in Apartment 5A, Ocean Club Resort, Praia de Luz

at 10pm on Thursday 3rd May 2007

Please if you have any information at all the emergency contact details are:

Freephone xxxxxxxx

So no time given, no date given, no place where it happened given. The wrong age given. The name of the child not given. The photo of a child who looks completely different to the photo of Madeleine in the alleged 'last photo'.

Really useful, then.

WHAT A BUNCH OF IDIOTS.

Poor Madeleine.

.

j.rob wrote:

Yes, bobbin. Pre-planned and incredibly badly acted out. I wonder if a nanny wrote this? Someone very young and not particularly bright either. It is indeed very childish writing with the affectation of the circles as dots for the 'i's which is so inappropriate given the alleged circumstances. You would almost expect to find a smiley at the end of it, so glib is the message. (As always with TM, a graphologist would have a field-day.)  But would be very interesting to know who wrote this as whoever it was appears to be remarkably unphased about it all.

 The wording is extraordinary. Very impersonal and reveals very little useful information.

Missing


3 YRS
from last 
night.

Please Contact

Luz Ocean
Club

----------

From the way it is written it is as though the child photographed has been missing for three years from (since) last night.

You would expect a phrase like 'Nearly four year old girl' And then the name Madeleine. 

Or 'Madeleine - nearly four years old.' Otherwise, how can any adult who finds her know how to make sure it is the right child?

But instead there is the incredibly impersonal '3 YRS'. As though Madeleine is nothing more than a period of time - and a wrong period of time at that.

'from last night' is incredibly vague and does not follow on logically from the '3 YRS'. The use of the word 'from' suggests that what will follow will be the location of where Madeleine went missing. Which is vital information - crucial. Yet not there.

So, for instance, "from Apartment 5A, (Mark Warner) Ocean Club Resort. Luz."

So, apart from being inexplicably vague, as it fails to give a time-frame for when Madeleine is thought to have gone missing, it also fails to say where exactly she went missing from.


Then there is the bright and breezy 'please contact' with not an ounce of urgency. More an invitation for someone to pop along if they have the inclination. Once they have looked up the address and telephone number of course.

Then we have:
'Luz Ocean
Club'

No mention of Mark Warner Holidays. No address. No emergency telephone number. No person to contact. So I guess whoever finds Madeleine has just got get out the telephone directory or go on the internet to find the telephone number. And go through to general reception while the receptionist deals with restaurant and hotel bookings.

Extraordinary!

What you might expect would be:

Urgent

Missing 

Nearly 4 year old girl.

Her name is Madeleine

Last seen asleep in Apartment 5A, Ocean Club Resort, Praia de Luz

at 10pm on Thursday 3rd May 2007

Please if you have any information at all the emergency contact details are:

Freephone xxxxxxxx

I would lay money on that poster being written by a nanny or another daft lass.

The circle over the i is typical of the sorts of girls of average intelligence who giggled in corners and had pictures of cute puppies on their rough books, pink fluffy pencil cases and posters of Wham on their bedroom walls. I remember the sort well from school.

I was going to post exactly the same but you beat me to it

In the pink polka dot photo someone has scribbled across the bridge of Madeleine's nose and forehead with a photoshop tool. Why would someone do that?

3rd of May, Portimao.

Cloudy and looks cold.

Not sitting by the pool weather.



Guys on the motor boat look like they are wearing fleeces.

http://www.formulawindsurfing.org/news/1263

3rd of May 2007
Day 3
17:45
Another great competition day comes to an end. Gonzalo attacked Steve and was able to score two bullets. Unfortunately an equipment failure stopped his attack. But none the less the result list will be interesting before the two final days. For tomorrow we will again have Skippers meeting at 12:00 (13:00 CET)and the first possible start at 13:00(14:00 CET).
Race 10 finish: ARG-3, BRA-74, AUS-0, POL-25, POL-16,...
Check the results after 10 races...
17:10
Race 10 (last for today) will starts in 10 minutes! So far check the results after 9 races...
Two exciting races!:
Finish Race#9: AUS-0, BRA-999, BRA-74, ESP-71, ITA-456,...
Do., 3.05.2007 The outhowlsystem of Gonzo was broken.
Race 8 finish: ARG-3, AUS-0, POL-25, POL-16 (OCS), NED-13, BRA-999 / another race back to back soon.

15:05 | AP down... 10 to 15 knots in the racing area... race crew ready to start 8th race of the event...

14:06 The wind is side-offshore today. So we will again have an up and down course. The race crew is going on the water to set up the course...
13:30 We just had the skippers Meeting. The breeze starts to build slowly. We postpone for one hour. The next announcement will be at 14:00. The we hope to start three races in the afternoon.
11:30 Good morning from sunny and calm Portimao! Today is the third day of the Formula Windsurfing Grand Prix here at Alvor Beach. At the moment it is still quiet but in the afternoon we await 12 to 15 knots again. The Skippers Meeting is at 12:00 (13:00 CET) with the first possible start at 13:00 (14:00 CET). Stay tuned for further news!

So a wind of 10 - 15 knots (11 - 17 mph, 19 - 28 kph, Beaufort 4 Moderate Breeze - Beaufort 6 strong breeze)
Now look at Madeleine's hair and her little sun hat

The weather kicked up at mid-day by the looks of it.

There is plenty of cloud and wind in the racing videos and pictures.

The sky was clearer in the south across the sea but overcast on land.

People are wearing fleeces and surfers look cold and one seems to be shivering.

Not pool weather.

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/LPFR/2007/5/3/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA&MR=1

We're looking at 17 degrees C (mild) when the pool picture was supposedly taken but it had been cooler just before that.

At 17• C I would be turning blue if I were to be chilling next to the pool - in summer clothes!

BlueBag wrote:
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/LPFR/2007/5/3/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA&MR=1

We're looking at 17 degrees C (mild) when the pool picture was supposedly taken but it had been cooler just before that.

17ºC PLUS (or in fact MINUS) Wind chill factor,
Even in that range it drops the apparent temperature by at least a couple of degrees.  Hence the fleeces.
So it will feel like 15ºC,  60ºF   bl*****  cold in fact.  Goose pimples not sweaty foreheads.

Oh, yes, and they have all got their feet in the pool, which Kate tells us was so cold the previous day that she got hypothermia and took Three HOURS to stop shivering.
No mention of what happened to Madeleine (of course !) She should have been in Intensive Care on that evidence.

There are so many gaping holes in this case. This collection of examples above being one of them.
As another poster opined: Even without any photo shopping of Madeleine.

What is also very strange to my mind is that we have never seen photos of Madeleine posted anywhere that were not supplied directly or indirectly, by the parents.
Why hasn't someone like Brunt chased up someone, like they do, who knew Madeleine, through friends, parties or whatever. Why has no parent of a friend of Maddies, given any contribution by way of anecdotes or photos, (like a recent one?) to help boost the "fund" search for Maddie. After all, the team have turned Maddies disappearance into the public media circus it is.

All in my opinion.

Snifferdog wrote:There are so many gaping holes in this case. This collection of examples above being one of them.
As another poster opined: Even without any photo shopping of Madeleine.

What is also very strange to my mind is that we have never seen photos of Madeleine posted anywhere that were not supplied directly or indirectly, by the parents.
Why hasn't someone like Brunt chased up someone, like they do, who knew Madeleine, through friends, parties or whatever. Why has no parent of a friend of Maddies, given any contribution by way of anecdotes or photos, (like a recent one?) to help boost the "fund" search for Maddie. After all, the team have turned Maddies disappearance into the public media circus it is.

All in my opinion.

It is indeed very peculiar that there are so few photos of Madeleine either from that week or from before. What about birthday party photos? Photos from nursery school? Why haven't friends popped up, as you say, with photos or anecdotes? 

The 'happy family' photos in Kate's book are all quite weird, imo.

I wonder if it is true that Madeleine was not GM's biological child? If that were the case, it opens up all sorts of questions. I just don't see much evidence that he bonded with her.

There are, it is true, several short home videos (the clapping at the bottom of the stairs one, the 'Snow White' one - which is a bit weird, imo, the Christmas one) but these are all supplied by the McCanns.

Which j.rob begs the question if the fertility problem lay with Kate or Gerry?
I don't think this has been established yet, but I may be wrong.

The lack of photos or anecdotes from others who would have been in contact with Madeleine in the UK has been the most glaring issue for me all along. I don't understand it. My children's schools have always required us to sign consent forms so that photos can be taken in the classroom, as documentation of learning and activities that are done throughout the year. I don't know anyone who doesn't consent to this. There are photos of my kids playing "house" in the their preschool classes, participating in assemblies with guest musicians and artists, playing on the swings and in the sandbox, working on experiments in class when they were a little older...the point is, there is lots of visual evidence that they go to school.

As some else mentioned, how about birthday parties? Play dates? Holiday gatherings with other relatives? Summer barbecues? I don't understand how, in this age of easy photographic ability with digital cameras, there aren't tons of photos available. My children were born in a similar time frame to the McC children and we have more photos of them than we know what to do with. It's just so easy to do today.

Does anyone know whether they were active in a church parish in the UK? I'm surprised there haven't been stories about Madeleine in Sunday school or playing in the church nursery. They really kept this girl under wraps at home, I guess.

MissesWillYa wrote:The lack of photos or anecdotes from others who would have been in contact with Madeleine in the UK has been the most glaring issue for me all along. I don't understand it. My children's schools have always required us to sign consent forms so that photos can be taken in the classroom, as documentation of learning and activities that are done throughout the year. I don't know anyone who doesn't consent to this. There are photos of my kids playing "house" in the their preschool classes, participating in assemblies with guest musicians and artists, playing on the swings and in the sandbox, working on experiments in class when they were a little older...the point is, there is lots of visual evidence that they go to school.

As some else mentioned, how about birthday parties? Play dates? Holiday gatherings with other relatives? Summer barbecues? I don't understand how, in this age of easy photographic ability with digital cameras, there aren't tons of photos available. My children were born in a similar time frame to the McC children and we have more photos of them than we know what to do with. It's just so easy to do today.

Does anyone know whether they were active in a church parish in the UK? I'm surprised there haven't been stories about Madeleine in Sunday school or playing in the church nursery. They really kept this girl under wraps at home, I guess.

The most peculiar thing of all though is when Madeleine disappeared, why did they DELETE a whole load of photos ?

Snifferdog wrote:Which j.rob begs the question if the fertility problem lay with Kate or Gerry?
I don't think this has been established yet, but I may be wrong.

In Kate's book she writes that she was diagnosed with endometriosis - 'which can sometimes cause fertility problems.'

But of course the problem might equally have been with GM. Although it does appear that the twins are the biological children of both of them.

There was an article in a Portuguese newspaper claiming that Gerry was not Madeleine's biological father. Link below. If this is the case, imo, it might explain quite a lot.

24horas editor Luis Fontes said his story was confirmed by Portuguese and British police insiders. "It’s true," he said. "Our sources are rock solid. If they think they can sue us, bring it on."

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id1.html

I trust PeterMsc
those who quetion should bail this forum

Peter Mac
G Amraral
A Benett
MEMBERS of this FORUM
ate TRUTH seekers

WE RULE FOR MBM

Dont Make Me Laff wrote:I trust PeterMsc
those who quetion should bail this forum

Peter Mac
G Amraral
A Benett
MEMBERS of this FORUM
ate TRUTH seekers

WE RULE FOR MBM

The most pathetic and drunken post I have yet seen on this forum. Sort it out boy