Re: Was the "Last Photo" taken on the FIRST Day?

by Verdi 13.07.15 13:19

Richard IV wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Nuala, were you/are you actively involved with this case in an official capacity? A simple yes or no would suffice if you feel inclined to reply. My reason for asking is that you speak with some authority and I don't want to waste my time researching different aspects of the case if you can supply the answers.
I had (and still have) no idea who Nuala is, having never, if memory serves, having come across her previously, but again IIRC someone on a forum or on FB somewhere said recently that Nuala was originally a very forceful 'pro-McCann' - but somewhere along the line changed to being a McCann-doubter.

I hope I have got that right, sincere apologies if I haven't
See jeanmonroe's posts on page 56 of the Steve Marsden thread.

[Nuala is not the other Nuala who used to support the McCanns - from the Wayback thread:

Nuala @ jeanmonroe

So that's NOT you, the 'Nuala', who 'began as their (McCanns') supporter,

No, that's not me.

who left that 'comment' then?

No idea, and neither do I care. - Mod.]

And of course it goes without saying you are not the Nuala that KM phoned at 8,56am on Friday 4th May 2007.

"8.50.27 am Gerry calls Angela Morado, UK consulate (4.47 minutes)

8.51.42 am Kate calls ... (0 seconds) SMS

8.52.41 am Kate calls Jon Corner (73 seconds)

8.56.15 am Kate calls Nuala (47 seconds)

8.57.17 am Jill mob calls Kate (0 seconds) SMS

9.01.55 am ... calls Gerry (1.46 minutes)

9.04.16 am ... calls Gerry (1.28 minutes)

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_INFORMATION.htm

... Popcorn and isis will be available during the interval. ppcorn

by Verdi 13.07.15 13:32

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I don't think it really matters who Nuala is no more than who I am, with all due respect to the likes of Tony and PeterMac.

There is a Nuala that regularly comments on textUSA's blog. If it is the same person I'm sure she'll? confirm.

@Verdi

I'm surprised and intrigued about what you say about the Fosters and Hampshire Police. It seems pretty simple and straight forward once you make yourself through the "treacle" that is the PJ files.

1, Copy of email sent by LP to HP http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/OA3_8/03_volume_III_o_apenso_VIII_Page_542.jpg LP spoke to Mr Foster that morning (8th May) and LP requested local HP to go to his house after 15:15 PM 8th May.

2, The local PC Barham goes to the house, reviews and collects the Sony camcorder and Olympus camera and delivers them to DC Martin's own home at 21:00 PM the same evening.

3, at 8:30 AM May 9th DC Martin delivers the Sony camcorder to the Hampshire imaging unit, Netley. He doesn't examine that himself and I don't know of anything else in the files about the imaging unit or Netley?

The rest we've been through.

Not for the first time in this thread I'm confused Verdi!

You're confused? Apart from the link (which I've read many times), I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Yes, I'm sure 'we've' been through all this before but that 'we' excludes me, furthermore I'm not the person that reintroduced the topic.

If someone could guide me to past discussion on the subject to clear my foggy brain I would be most grateful. So far, outside of this forum, I've only read conflicting opinions with no explanation to justify their claims.

by Nuala 13.07.15 18:21

@ Verdi - No I'm not actively involved with this case in any official capacity, nor have I ever been, so I'm afraid I'm unable to help you
with your question.

@ Tony Bennett
IIRC someone on a forum or on FB somewhere said recently that Nuala was originally a very forceful 'pro-McCann' - but somewhere
along the line changed to being a McCann-doubter.

Ladyinred and a Mod have kindly clarified that for you.

@ TheTruthWillOut - I'm happy to confirm that yes, I'm the same Nuala who posts comments on Textusa's blog.

@ Richard IV
And of course it goes without saying you are not the Nuala that KM phoned at 8,56am on Friday 4th May 2007.

One would think that it should go without saying, but apparently not, so no, I'm not the Nuala that KM phoned at 8,56am on Friday 4th May 2007.

by TheTruthWillOut 13.07.15 18:43

Verdi wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:I don't think it really matters who Nuala is no more than who I am, with all due respect to the likes of Tony and PeterMac.

There is a Nuala that regularly comments on textUSA's blog. If it is the same person I'm sure she'll? confirm.

@Verdi

I'm surprised and intrigued about what you say about the Fosters and Hampshire Police. It seems pretty simple and straight forward once you make yourself through the "treacle" that is the PJ files.

1, Copy of email sent by LP to HP http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/OA3_8/03_volume_III_o_apenso_VIII_Page_542.jpg LP spoke to Mr Foster that morning (8th May) and LP requested local HP to go to his house after 15:15 PM 8th May.

2, The local PC Barham goes to the house, reviews and collects the Sony camcorder and Olympus camera and delivers them to DC Martin's own home at 21:00 PM the same evening.

3, at 8:30 AM May 9th DC Martin delivers the Sony camcorder to the Hampshire imaging unit, Netley. He doesn't examine that himself and I don't know of anything else in the files about the imaging unit or Netley?

The rest we've been through.

Not for the first time in this thread I'm confused Verdi!
You're confused? Apart from the link (which I've read many times), I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Yes, I'm sure 'we've' been through all this before but that 'we' excludes me, furthermore I'm not the person that reintroduced the topic.

If someone could guide me to past discussion on the subject to clear my foggy brain I would be most grateful. So far, outside of this forum, I've only read conflicting opinions with no explanation to justify their claims.

I'm even more confused with this response, Verdi!

You said in your previous post that what DC Martin says doesn't jive with what the Fosters said. I genuinely don't understand that. I'm all ears if you could give your take on this.

I honestly wasn't being rude with my last post.

by Nuala 13.07.15 18:48

@ Tony Bennett

Just so that we don't lose the point of this as can happen with wordy replies, we're talking here about whether there was an
abduction scenario that the participants had three days to plan. So the assumption is that something happened to MM on 30th April
and an abduction scenario was planned to cover up what happened.

1. An explanation for the 'checking' regime, which they say was maintained all week
Written twice on the same night. I would expect that after 3 days a consolidated version would be the one presented to the
GNR/PJ.

2. An account (by Mrs Fenn) of a child crying. Mrs Fenn insisted it was a child who had reached its third birthday, you could tell by the
voice (1)
That account came in August, not on the night of 3rd May, so had no influence on the crime scene or scenario presented to the
authorities and besides, if it was planned shouldn't Mrs Fenn have spoken immediately that night?

3. The 'Last Photo' - proof she was alive at 2.29pm on 3 May
Not released until three weeks after MM disappeared, so had no influence on the crime scene and besides, if it was planned shouldn't
that photo have had its date changed ready for 3rd May? A three minute job, that's all it takes to change the date.

I could go on, but the points you raise up to number 10 have no impact on the crime scene. As for point 11:

11. Madeleine gone - alarm raised
That would be expected for any scenario, planned or unplanned.

So to your crime scene points:

12. Shutters partly raised
Partly, shouldn't they be totally?

13. Window partly raised - Kate's fingerprints on window-frame
Partly opened (windows opened sideways), shouldn't it be totally opened with lock forced?

14. 'The shutters and windows were closed all week' - to keep out the heat
In what way does that contribute to an abduction scenario?

15. Curtains partly open - 'whooshed by the wind'
And then have them tucked between wall and bed? Shouldn't they be loose so they could whoosh? And anyway, KM only mentions the
whooshing much later, not on the night of 3rd May.

16. Madeleine's bed sheet turned back which suggests she had been removed
Sorry, but if anyone can see a child removed from that bed I can't, and neither could the PJ.

17. Pink blanket
What does it contribute to the abduction crime scene? First it was said Tannerman with the blanket then it wasn't. Shouldn't the
blanket story be better decided if everything was planned?

Again, I could go on.
.
There are things I would expect to see if they had three days to plan a credible abduction scenario, such as signs of a break in. They
had three days and they couldn't even manage that. With three days planning I would expect photos of the Tapas dinners showing
everything was normal and all was fine up until the fateful 3rd. With three days planning I would expect GM to get his story right
about which door he used to enter the apartment on night of 3rd.

On 4th May GM said that he "entered the room using his respective key, the door being locked". That's the front door, the patio door
doesn't lock with a key. So he reads, ratifies and signs his statement, in which he says he entered the apartment at 21.05 via the
front door.

On 10th May he changes his story and says he "followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move
[slide] it, that being the way in which he entered" and then reads, ratifies and signs this changed statement.

That looked good didn't it, for the father of the missing child to be changing his statement like that. With three days planning I would
expect him not to make such fundamental mistake.

Just supposing for a moment that this was not an abduction but that there was a planned abduction hoax, surely all the above
elements were a pretty fair attempt at a 'cover story', weren't they?

A considerable amount of effort has been made since 3rd May 2007 to promote the abduction story in the minds of the public, but
there was nothing that was done to create a credible abduction scene for the night of 3rd May that showed any planning beyond a
few hours.

by Nuala 13.07.15 19:02

@ PeterMac

And we believe we can on the balance of probabilities identify the person who did it, the date they did it, the person who then carried it back to PdL and handed it to Mitchell, who released it to the AFP with all the Mitchell stuff about "look at the time" . . . meaning Look at the date.

The Last Photo didn't need carrying to the UK and back to PdL to change the date in the meta data. It takes three minutes not three weeks. All they had to do was copy the photo to a PC and right click on the photo.

And if none of the T9 knew how to change the date, and those at the OC too busy manipulating the booking sheets didn't have time, then wasn't CEOP in PdL soon after MM disappeared? And all sorts of other Establishment help? Are you suggesting no-one at CEOP knew how to change the date on a photo?

I agree the photo was taken to the UK and then back to PdL but it was for another reason, not to change the date, that could easily be done in PdL in a matter of minutes.

by lj 13.07.15 19:45

by Inspector Clouseau 13.07.15 22:07

Nuala -
I'm not sure changing the data and time of a photo is quite as easy as you think. When you upload a photo to a computer it will have (at least) 2 dates and times. In Windows it will show the date and time the photo was uploaded, and if you go into a photo editing program you should be able to see the date and time the photo was taken.

You said it's as simple as right-click on the photo in Windows, that will certainly show you the create / modify and access dates and times, but I can't find an easy way to edit them. So how exactly in windows do you change this ?

Then the photo itself (the jpg file), will have stored in its metadata, the creation time of when the photo was taken, again I can't find an easy way in Windows to edit this. I know a Photoshop type programs will allow you to alter the metadata but that are there any programs in a default Windows environment that allows you to do this.

If it does take three minutes then I'm happy to be educated on how this is done.

Finally, if I was altering the date on a photo that might be scrutinised, I'd probably want to do some research to ensure my changes wouldn't be discovered. Photos contain a lot of metadata, some of which won't be visible to a simple editing program, so I would want to check that none of the hidden fields contained something of importance...

Inspector C.

by Verdi 13.07.15 23:00

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Verdi wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:I don't think it really matters who Nuala is no more than who I am, with all due respect to the likes of Tony and PeterMac.

There is a Nuala that regularly comments on textUSA's blog. If it is the same person I'm sure she'll? confirm.

@Verdi

I'm surprised and intrigued about what you say about the Fosters and Hampshire Police. It seems pretty simple and straight forward once you make yourself through the "treacle" that is the PJ files.

1, Copy of email sent by LP to HP http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/OA3_8/03_volume_III_o_apenso_VIII_Page_542.jpg LP spoke to Mr Foster that morning (8th May) and LP requested local HP to go to his house after 15:15 PM 8th May.

2, The local PC Barham goes to the house, reviews and collects the Sony camcorder and Olympus camera and delivers them to DC Martin's own home at 21:00 PM the same evening.

3, at 8:30 AM May 9th DC Martin delivers the Sony camcorder to the Hampshire imaging unit, Netley. He doesn't examine that himself and I don't know of anything else in the files about the imaging unit or Netley?

The rest we've been through.

Not for the first time in this thread I'm confused Verdi!
You're confused? Apart from the link (which I've read many times), I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Yes, I'm sure 'we've' been through all this before but that 'we' excludes me, furthermore I'm not the person that reintroduced the topic.

If someone could guide me to past discussion on the subject to clear my foggy brain I would be most grateful. So far, outside of this forum, I've only read conflicting opinions with no explanation to justify their claims.

I'm even more confused with this response, Verdi!

You said in your previous post that what DC Martin says doesn't jive with what the Fosters said. I genuinely don't understand that. I'm all ears if you could give your take on this.

I honestly wasn't being rude with my last post.

Rest assured I didn't think for a second that you were being rude, I just couldn't understand your point.

On numerous occasions I've been caught up in con-flab about this issue, leaving aside the insults and accusations of being a conspiraloon (is that a real word?), I have only been told (as in talked down too) that the photographic footage examined by a specialist from the Hampshire Constabulary was only that provided by the Foster family but I've yet to read anything that proves that assertion - it appears to me but an assumption.

If I may briefly try to explain. What I think to be the pertinent points contained in the link you posted up I have highlighted..

Email from Leicester police to Hampshire Constabulary dated 8th May 2007

Would you kindly permit an officer to visit Mrs F*****?.
She has recently been on holiday to the MW complex and is in possession of video footage taken by her husband. It is understood that the footage is currently contained on their home computer. The allocated officer will need to review the footage and all footage of the complex should be downloaded onto a suitable storage disc. Mr F**** has indicated that it probably only consists of a thirty second pan of the playground area/pool area/Tapas bar. Mr and Mrs F are not technically competent to download the data. Please statement accordingly re exhibit continuity.

I have spoken to Mr F this morning and he has been advised that local officers will make contact with his wife.

If possible please send a copy to me for initial viewing in the Incident Room.

No mention of anything but video footage on the Fosters home computer to be transfered to an appropriate disc for onward transmission. At this point I can't see the need for the disc to be forwarded to an technical expert for analysis when all that was required was for the visiting police officer to transfer the video footage from the Fosters computer to a disc to be later examined by Leicester police.

Moving on to Stuart Martin's witness statement, there is absolutely no confirmation or even indication that the camera equipment handed over to him was the property of the Foster family. Not that I expect it to be mentioned in his statement but as I said, the detail of the equipment given over to him for analysis does not in any way indicate that it was connected to the Fosters. According to the email above, Mr Foster thought there would only be a thirty second pan on their video that might be of assistance to the investigation - again this hardly accords with the detail of the items analyzed by Stuart Martin. Also, neither Mr Foster or his wife were being investigated by the police so why would it be necessary to analyze their photographic equipment and/or shots, surely all the police would require is the actual photographs and/or video to view?

In my view this begs the question - who did this camera equipment belong to?

Looking at the bigger picture maybe this is not particularly important but this forum has been under a lot of fire, as some non-members insist categorically that the photographic equipment and imagery analyzed by Stuart Martin was the property of the Fosters alone, I would like to see some proof of that assertion. Not only for my own peace of mind but also to avert yet another instance of supposition being passed off as fact. It seems to me to be a case of if you say it often enough people will believe it.

Hope I've made myself clear.

by Nuala 13.07.15 23:03

@ Inspector Clouseau

The information about changing the date and time on a photo I got from the Internet and I tried it on one of my photos and it worked. I can't remember the web page where I read the information, but there is a link to it in one of my posts.

It was a recent page though, and I'm more than willing to conceded that back in 2007 things might have been a little more complicated and am happy to change the estimated timing for changing the date from three minutes to three hours, or even three days.

But it doesn't take three weeks, and neither does it require the photo to be shipped back to the UK.

After MM's disappearance there were plenty of people in PdL helping the McCanns who would have been able to change that date.

It's interesting you mentioning Photoshop because that's included in the full Exif details:

Software Adobe Photoshop CS Windows

by Verdi 13.07.15 23:32

@ Nuala

@ Verdi - No I'm not actively involved with this case in any official capacity, nor have I ever been, so I'm afraid I'm unable to help you
with your question.

Thank you for replying Nuala.

by Nuala 13.07.15 23:34

@ lj

Thank you for the links.

I might be new to this forum but I'm not new to this case. Indeed anyone who follows Textusa's blog, as I have, will have a very detailed and informed background to it.

I appreciate you trying to help though and posting the links for me smilie

by Nuala 13.07.15 23:44

@ Verdi

You're welcome smilie

I've read your posts and understand the point you're making about the Foster video/camera/photo situation but it's not something I've really looked at so can't shed any light.

It's probably fair to assume that if the Fosters had video footage they also had photos and perhaps some correspondence is missing from the files, I don't know so just speculating about that.

by TheTruthWillOut 14.07.15 0:09

@Verdi.

The email seems to have been written by someone that also isn't too savvy when it comes to computers with the request of having Hampshire email video footage (even just 10 minutes if edited first). Today's email uploads are generally limited to just 25MB and probably 10MB in 2007. Even an edited 10 minutes of MiniDV footage would be ~2GB!

I hear what you're saying Verdi but even by my standards, that is some cynicism!

Maybe Mr Foster only mentioned the video footage when he talked to LP. When PC Barham went to collect the footage he may have seen the camera or the PDL pictures on the computer and asked to take them too? Or Mrs Foster offered the camera? That's just one scenario though. Granted, it is odd that the email does only mention video footage and DC Martin drops the camcorder off at the imaging unit but there is nothing in the files I've seen that the PJ received a copy of that
footage like they did with the pictures.

Also I would think the Fosters have checked out the PJ files like others and would have protested if anything was wrong?

by Verdi 14.07.15 1:13

TheTruthWillOut wrote:@Verdi.

The email seems to have been written by someone that also isn't too savvy when it comes to computers with the request of having Hampshire email video footage (even just 10 minutes if edited first). Today's email uploads are generally limited to just 25MB and probably 10MB in 2007. Even an edited 10 minutes of MiniDV footage would be ~2GB!

I hear what you're saying Verdi but even by my standards, that is some cynicism!

Maybe Mr Foster only mentioned the video footage when he talked to LP. When PC Barham went to collect the footage he may have seen the camera or the PDL pictures on the computer and asked to take them too? Or Mrs Foster offered the camera? That's just one scenario though. Granted, it is odd that the email does only mention video footage and DC Martin drops the camcorder off at the imaging unit but there is nothing in the files I've seen that the PJ received a copy of that
footage like they did with the pictures.

Also I would think the Fosters have checked out the PJ files like others and would have protested if anything was wrong?

Oh yes, I was born cynical but I don't think my cynicism is the issue here - unless it's leeched through from the sub-conscious big grin

.

I'm not meaning to be unreasonably contrary but this just doesn't make sense to me, no matter how I try I cannot see the issue as clear cut. It really would be appreciated if someone could direct me to the thread on this forum where it's been discussed in-depth, I'd like to read how others interpret the detail - if for no other reason than to clear my muddled head. As I say, so far I've never been offered an explanation to prove me wrong, only continuous declarations that I am wrong, if you get my drift

Limited time 'n all that, not very good at navigating the forum so please don't tell me to use the search facility. dance

by Joannep43 16.07.15 16:00

I don't know if this has been mentioned before but I have noticed a similarity with the last photo and the photo of Madeleine exiting the Wendy house in PDL.That similarity is her hair.I noticed that in both of these photos her fringed is clumped together and one side and her hair falls under slightly with a wispy strand on one side.I would conclude that if her hair had been brushed / washed in between these photos her hair would look slightly different. I don't have the technical ability to put these two photos together.Its just my observation ,if that helps.

by TheTruthWillOut 16.07.15 18:36

Verdi wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:@Verdi.

The email seems to have been written by someone that also isn't too savvy when it comes to computers with the request of having Hampshire email video footage (even just 10 minutes if edited first). Today's email uploads are generally limited to just 25MB and probably 10MB in 2007. Even an edited 10 minutes of MiniDV footage would be ~2GB!

I hear what you're saying Verdi but even by my standards, that is some cynicism!

Maybe Mr Foster only mentioned the video footage when he talked to LP. When PC Barham went to collect the footage he may have seen the camera or the PDL pictures on the computer and asked to take them too? Or Mrs Foster offered the camera? That's just one scenario though. Granted, it is odd that the email does only mention video footage and DC Martin drops the camcorder off at the imaging unit but there is nothing in the files I've seen that the PJ received a copy of that
footage like they did with the pictures.

Also I would think the Fosters have checked out the PJ files like others and would have protested if anything was wrong?
Oh yes, I was born cynical but I don't think my cynicism is the issue here - unless it's leeched through from the sub-conscious .

I'm not meaning to be unreasonably contrary but this just doesn't make sense to me, no matter how I try I cannot see the issue as clear cut. It really would be appreciated if someone could direct me to the thread on this forum where it's been discussed in-depth, I'd like to read how others interpret the detail - if for no other reason than to clear my muddled head. As I say, so far I've never been offered an explanation to prove me wrong, only continuous declarations that I am wrong, if you get my drift

Limited time 'n all that, not very good at navigating the forum so please don't tell me to use the search facility.

Been thinking about this for a couple of days and think the issue you have with this is:

The initial email from LP only, and specifically, talks about video footage. Only DC Martin conducts his expertise on the Fosters still camera. The video camera is dropped off at the imaging lab at 08:30 am on the 9th May by him.

The Sony Handicam, AFAIK, is not mentioned again.

The PJ only acknowledge receiving a CD of photographs on the 23rd May. Did the PJ not question where the video footage was? Or did they have it and just don't mention it?

May be the video footage is part of the missing files?

I'm not aware of a dedicated thread on this issue but if someone thinks it worth creating a thread on this subject, I'd be up for the discussion. Many questions that's for sure.

by thingy 28.08.15 7:19

Steve Marsden: Evidently Gerry McCann hates wearing sunglasses.
Analysis of photos of the McCanns in May 2007 shows that he only wore sunglasses on 2 confirmed days and 1 alleged day.
Gerry is only seen wearing sunglasses when he wears the same shirt he wore sat round the pool in what the McCann Clan claim is the last photo of Madeleine.
How bizarre that Gerry should have the sun in his eyes for most of May 2007 but only wear those sunglasses with the same t-shirt and shorts.
Kate thought it very important to mention the sunglasses. In her book she wrote about buying the sunglasses on the afternoon of Tuesday May 1, 2007.
Here's what Kate wrote in her book:
Having polished off her ice-cream, Madeleine asked if she could go back to Mini Club now, please. So much for extra family time! Before heading up the road, we stopped at a shop on the corner of Rua da Praia and Avenida dos Pescadores, one of several open-air, market-style stalls, as Gerry needed a pair of SUNGLASSES. A couple of the women who worked there were sitting by the stall, admiring and making a fuss of the children, who responded quite happily. These ladies were warm and friendly, this is the kind of thing that happens every day, especially in southern European countries, and I only remember it at all because of what subsequently happened.
I think her account was to reinforce the last photo "alibi" and I think Gerry only wore the sunglasses when the last photo was being taken. In other words, not on May 3, 2007.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/jkjoannekilcoyne/permalink/899517880110314/

Was the "Last Photo" taken on the FIRST Day? - Page 4 11128355_630765253724392_961197121285516824_n

Was the "Last Photo" taken on the FIRST Day? - Page 4 11128355_630765253724392_961197121285516824_n

Was the "Last Photo" taken on the FIRST Day? - Page 4 11070949_630765210391063_4294714133452761673_n

Was the "Last Photo" taken on the FIRST Day? - Page 4 11225449_630765230391061_2134178470739701297_n

Was the "Last Photo" taken on the FIRST Day? - Page 4 11036641_630765213724396_3590110324011015764_n

I thought PeterMac said it was cloudy all week?

by skyrocket 28.08.15 8:11

@thingy

The cloudy week was from 28 April - 4 May (the week of the Mc's holiday). This, I believe, is the week PM refers to.

From recollection, the only really decent sunny day was the 29 April (Sunday). This is when many think the 'last photo' could have been taken.

Looks like the weather improved considerably in the week after (the photos you have posted).

by **tigger** 28.08.15 9:46

http://weatherspark.com/#!dashboard;a=Portugal/8600-156_Luz/rua_da_Praia

gets you into the site when can then be searched extensively in all directions.

See also: Socratic questioning of the Last Photo - fytton.blogspot.nl 9th August.

(I don't look at it that often (no internet at home) so please comment here?

Wouldn't it be very useful to find a photograph WITH sunglasses to give us a date? Kate has provided us thoughtfully with a date of purchase for some reason.
If he did have these sunglasses and hasn't worn them since, well - he does look pretty naff in those.. look like women's glasses to me.

Btw. just had a mail from someone who is having a holiday there and says that PdL is such a very small place for an abduction to take place at the best of times. Although there's always the lawless hinterland....

by **PeterMac** 28.08.15 10:10

by pennylane 28.08.15 15:04

I would think the 'no sunglasses' situation, after the catastrophe, was due to them not wanting to look 'shady' or as if they had something to hide! As simple as that and nothing to do with the weather (imo).

by **tigger** 28.08.15 15:23

pennylane wrote:I would think the 'no sunglasses' situation, after the catastrophe, was due to them not wanting to look 'shady' or as if they had something to hide! As simple as that and nothing to do with the weather (imo).

I've not seen him with sunglasses in any other photograph - not old ones either. Clearly a special reason to put them on - to tell us how hot it was or perhaps he had a black eye? laughat

All that matters is that the photo wasn't taken at the time stated, a time stated very precisely too. That has a wealth of meaning on its own imo.

By the time this photo was produced the PJ had already asked inconvenient questions about the last time Maddie had been seen that day and the photograph didn't solve that problem - what the PJ may also have asked is why there were so few photos of Maddie on the DVD discs they got from Gerry and Michael Wright on the 9th of May. No family photographs of the McCanns at all, a few purporting to be of Maddie, but not the tennis photo neither the pool photo - it was a selection of photos mainly from the cameras of the other Tapas members. Many of those were groups or parents and children. But not of the McCanns.

by **PeterMac** 28.08.15 16:17

tigger wrote:
By the time this photo was produced the PJ had already asked inconvenient questions about the last time Maddie had been seen that day and the photograph didn't solve that problem - what the PJ may also have asked is why there were so few photos of Maddie on the DVD discs they got from Gerry and Michael Wright on the 9th of May. No family photographs of the McCanns at all, a few purporting to be of Maddie, but not the tennis photo neither the pool photo - it was a selection of photos mainly from the cameras of the other Tapas members. Many of those were groups or parents and children. But not of the McCanns.

There is also no evidence that the Last Photo was ever handed to the PJ.
So far as we can tell it was produced - purely by coincidence, obviously - on the day Gerry returned to PdL with the egregious Mitchell i tow, AND Philomena, (wife of a skilled photo-shopper and keen amateur astronomer) arrived, by coincidence later that evening.
By the following day the photo was in the hands of the AFP, and was released the the fanfare of nonsense about the time (- look at the time - look over here ) meaning look at the date on 24th.
So far as I am aware this photo does not feature in the PJ files. But if anyone knows different that would be interesting.

by **PeterMac** 28.08.15 16:25

Thingie
The longer quote is even more interesting

In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach. To be honest, I think they’d have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us. We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie. The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain. A bit of rain is not something that bothers a Scotsman like Gerry, but Sean and Amelie didn’t like the feel of the wet sand and insisted, in the way two-year-olds do, on being carried.
Our trip to the beach wasn’t exactly a roaring success and the kids certainly weren’t thanking us for it. Still, we made the best of it, and the suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces. The children and I sat down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them. The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for, I was momentarily torn. Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time.
How could I balk at leaving the kids to run a few yards for ice-creams and feel comfortable with the child-checking arrangement we had at dinner? I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction. Perhaps in my subconscious the prospect of three active children squabbling, hurting themselves or being hurt by somebody else in a public place in the middle of the afternoon rang more alarm bells than three sleeping children, safely tucked up in bed, being checked on regularly. If the fear of abduction had ever entered my head it would have been in the former situation.
Having polished off her ice-cream, Madeleine asked if she could go back to Mini Club now, please. So much for extra family time! Before heading up the road, we stopped at a shop on the corner of Rua da Praia and Avenida dos Pescadores, one of several open-air, market-style stalls, as Gerry needed a pair of sunglasses. A couple of the women who worked there were sitting by the stall, admiring and making a fuss of the children, who responded quite happily. These ladies were warm and friendly, this is the kind of thing that happens every day, especially in southern European countries, and I only remember it at all because of what subsequently happened.

It is cold and raining, and had been cold and overcast for two days, and this was clearly going to continue for a few days more - - - but we are told he bought sunglasses ! ¿ Que ?