Why release an old photo of Madeleine?/How did it get printed??

Why if the McCanns had a photo of Madeleine in the tennis court, that Kate said she took on her camera, on the Wed or Tues, (and which JT says she took) would they release a picture of Madleine that was so old. Why not release an up to date image, surely this is better than an old photo where the child has changed so much and looks so different.

Also need to find info on how it got printed and all the various stories. IIRC the PJ said no one possesed the paper it was on?

Careful with this one.
My recollection is that some one did have the appropriate printer and paper.
Shall follow up tomorrow (later today !!!)

I think it was one of the Ocean Club workers who had the printer, who then gave it to a boyfriend who went off with it and that's why it wasn't traced.

Although if what you are driving at was the level of perceived pre-planning, it is worth recalling that Gerry said they would do something to raise publicity "Not a year anniversary, sooner than that" or words to that effect. It gave the impression that they knew she wouldn't be turning up in the immediate future. Also the trip to Rome etc, had they believed she could be found sooner rather than later, why would you choose to be in a different country and not available to rush to your daughters side were she found? All the very early behaviour suggested they were not expecting her to turn up. That stood out as a massive red flag.

PeterMac wrote:Careful with this one.
My recollection is that some one did have the appropriate printer and paper.
Shall follow up tomorrow (later today !!!)

This is what I was thinking of, if I am reading correctly the PJ went to places and couldn't trace the paper......

TRANSLATIONS BY INES

12-PROCESSOS XII Pages 3248

12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3248 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3249 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] EXTERNAL DILIGENCE Date: 16.08.2007 Location: Praia da Luz Entity which determined the diligence: Functionary that executes: Joao Carlos and Joao Correira, Inspectors Description and result of diligence: On this date we travelled to the location referenced below with the intent of collecting elements relative to the poster style photographs (10 x 15) and which were alluded to in the previous information, namely, the place of its printing, for comparison with the paper. The establishment FUJI, in Luztur, Praia da Luz, Lagos, proprietor MANUEL SILVA, alleges that he does not use paper identical to the printed posters mentioned above. The establishment MLT SILVA, situated on Rua Portas de Portugal, no. 23, Lagos' Proprietor MANUEL SILVA and the diligence had identical results. The establishment JOAO JULIO, on Rua Antonio Barbosa Viana, no. 20, Lagos 'functionary ENA COSTA, where also they do not use the same type of paper. The establishment MONTE CLARO, situated on Rua dos Quintais, no. 9, Lagos, proprietor JOAO CARRONDO, and the diligence was identical to the others. With nothing more to report.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]





Here we have hundreds of posters printed on the OC printer

TRANSLATIONS BY INES

12-Processos Vol XII Pages 3259- 3260

12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3259 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3260 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3261 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3262 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3263 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Date 02-10-2007 Place: Ocean Club Executing Officers: Paolo Ferreira and Ricardo Paiva On this date, at 15.00 we went to the Ocean Club where we were received by the Maintenance and Service Manager, Silvia Baptista, and by the Mark Warner director, John Hill. We asked them to show us all the printers and photocopiers existing at the OC, which were operational at the time of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and that were used to print colour copies of Madeleines photo. Silvia Baptista informed us that at the request of John Hill and his wife D****, hundreds of colour copies of a photo of Madeleine McCann were printed on 4th May 2007 with the aim of distributing them in Pda L and Lagos. For this purpose a colour photocopier, Toshiba, in the main OC reception was used as well as an HP laser printer, HP Color Laserjet 2840 located at a desk at the Ocean Country company, a colour laser printer Epsom Aculaser C1100 located on the desk of the administrative secretary and a colour laser printer HP Color Laserjet 1600 located on John Hills desk. On his part, John Hill informed us that the printing of large quantities of Madeleines photo was carried out by himself with the help of his wife, at the request of Russell O'Brien, a member of the McCann's group of friends, John Hill stated that the photograph the colour prints were made from a mobile data disk of the 'memory stick' kind that Russell O'Brien gave him on the morning of 4th May. They both stipulated that these were the only colour printers and photocopiers in existence at the Ocean Club and that there was no other place with the capacity for colour printing. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] TRANSLATIONS BY INES 12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3245 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3246 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3247 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Processos XII Pages 3245 to 3246 POLICIA JUDICIARIA NUIPC-201/07.0 GALGS 4a BRIGADA INFORMATION As regards the entry terms which follow, this police was handed by the Guarda Nacional Republicada (GNR), four (4) 10 x 15 photographs on 'Kodak Xtralife Paper' which were given to that police force by family of the missing minor MADELEINE MCCANN on the day which the facts were reported. In these photographs is the image of a minor, in all ways identical to the child of British nationality referenced above, in two distinct poses (two by two). As mentioned previously, these were in the possession of the childs family, which from the beginning, even though there may be an explanation, appeared unusual, as on that night there was no possibility of proceeding with a revelation of the type of paper and the format used. Thus, we sent the photographs to the Scientific Police Laboratory, conforming with official files no. 2295, and with the aim of answering the questions raised. Even though we await formal response, we were informed that is not possible to have answers to the questions, specifically, as to what printers) was/were used, when, in what form and where. Still, in the wake of collecting other elements, we went to various establishments in Praia da Luz and Lagos, dedicated to photography, where we learnt that that type of paper (used in the posters) is not used in any of the locations and which conforms to the report which is attached. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] TRANSLATIONS BY INES 16 Processos Vol XI Pages 4193 to 4194 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4193 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4194 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4195 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] 16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4196 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Witness Statement Date : 2008-04-17 Time. 10.00 Place: Praia da Luz Name: Amy Tierney Has made previous statements in May last year. Given that she does not speak Portuguese, Silvia Batista acted as interpreter. When questioned and shown the photographs referred to in the previous statements, depicting the English girl, on 'Kodak Xtra Life ' paper, 10 x 15, she said they were printed on her printer, also of Kodak brand. When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware, which could read from memory sticks. She went to her room and returned to the Tapas with the printer where she printed out 20 to 30 photographs of the girl, using her own paper, in 10x15 format mentioned previously. The memory stick containing the photos belonged to the McCann couple, and came from their camera. She thinks that all of this took place at about 24.00 on 3rd May 2007. She presumes that she handed all of the photos to Russell, who distributed some to those present, the rest would be for the police authorities. As regards her printer, she says that it is no longer in her possession as it is now with her boyfriend in France, she says, after consultation, and in accordance with her previous statements, that is was a 'Kodak', model Easy Share G60, of thermal ink transfer, with continuous tonality. In annex, is documentation about the printer, describing its technical characteristics, which she recognises as being identical to her printer. No more is said. She signs the statement together with the interpreter. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] So according to the above, 20 to 30 printed on the night........on Amy Tierney's own paper. PJ could not find anyone selling it, so she must have brought it with her to PDL, which is perfectly reasonable, if I am reading right. The printer ended up in France. Then hundreds more posters printed the next day on the OC printer and paper. So mystery solved.

Got so much to say on this subject and don't know where to start except at the top

From the PJ reports, important facts I see are:

• we sent the photographs to the Scientific Police Laboratory, conforming with official files no. 2295, and with the aim of answering the questions raised. Even though we await formal response, we were informed that is not possible to have answers to the questions, specifically, as to what printers) was/were used, when, in what form and where - Was the Scientific Police Laboratory in the UK? We know how Forensics in Birmingham manipulated the DNA

• on that night there was no possibility of proceeding with a revelation of the type of paper and the format used

• we went to various establishments in Praia da Luz and Lagos, dedicated to photography, where we learnt that that type of paper (used in the posters) is not used in any of the locations and which conforms to the report which is attached

• hundreds of colour copies of a photo of Madeleine McCann were printed on 4th May 2007. For this purpose a colour photocopier, Toshiba, in the main OC reception was used as well as an HP laser printer, HP Color Laserjet 2840 located at a desk at the Ocean Country company, a colour laser printer Epsom Aculaser C1100 located on the desk of the administrative secretary and a colour laser printer HP Color Laserjet 1600 located on John Hills desk.

• John Hill informed us that the printing of large quantities of Madeleines photo was carried out by himself with the help of his wife, at the request of Russell O'Brien, a member of the McCann's group of friends, John Hill stated that the photograph the colour prints were made from a mobile data disk of the 'memory stick' kind that Russell O'Brien gave him on the morning of 4th May.

• We asked them [Ocean Club] to show us all the printers and photocopiers existing at the OC, which were operational at the time of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and that were used to print colour copies of Madeleines photo. They both stipulated that these were the only colour printers and photocopiers in existence at the Ocean Club and that there was no other place with the capacity for colour printing.

Remember that ROB had robert murats number in his mobile on the morning of 4th May which we know for a fact. I think this was in his mobile since May 1st when robert murat got back to PDL and through robert murat is where Malinka helped with the computer side of things and with printing of posters. He probably had the pictures of Maddie on his computer from ROB's memory stick and/or mccanns camera/emails sent to him from family and why he wiped his drives before the PJ took them to erase any trace of them being on his computer imo. He had them printed prior to the night of May 3rd 2007
------

Amy Tierney...We all know she claimed that it was her boyfriend who had this exclusive printer and just like Cat Baker he left PDL asap (why aren't these people staying to help?), in the boyfriends case taking the printer with him travelling with it all the way from Portugal to France. Who travels with printers across Europe?? And what if Amy needed to print something in the future, she can't now because boyfriend has selfishly taken it with him. These are some of many questions I have in relation to that I believe the printer belonging to the boyfriend is a total fabrication to cover for the fact that the PJ could not find anywhere in PDL the paper the posters on the Night of 3rd May were printed on. And especially at midnight how did they really print them? Reading Amy Tierney's statements:

6th May 2007 - She makes no mention of printing these posters and the end of her statement adds "The witness does not remember any element that could be useful to the investigation"

17th April 2008 -
• When questioned and shown the photographs referred to in the previous statements, depicting the English girl, on 'Kodak Xtra Life ' paper, 10 x 15, she said they were printed on her printer, also of Kodak brand

• She thinks that all of this took place at about 24.00 on 3rd May 2007. She presumes that she handed all of the photos to Russell, who distributed some to those present, the rest would be for the police authorities.

Compare the posters being printed at 24.00 with charlotte pennington statement from the next day, 7th May 2007:

• The witness states that she participated in the searches, together with her colleague, Amy, searching various areas of the Ocean Club establishment. She participated in the searches until 01H30 on the 4th of May, 2007, when she returned to her residence;


Charlotte is saying that she was with Amy searching that night till 01.30. And no mention of printing of posters either

Russell O’Brienn doesn’t mention the photos to Amy Tierney in his first statement either. None of them mentions them until the RI's

From Amy Tierney's statement note that she refers to ROB as Russell (first name terms) and notice the DATE of the statement in which she refers to these printing posters....April 2008...The Rogatory Interviews. Why was she asked about them in the RI's?. As PeterMac explained, the RI's are for the suspects to ask the questions and not be interviewed themselves. With these RI's this seems to be the case, the mccanns were never interviewed but were able to ask the questions. And reading the RI's they all seem to be backing the mccanns story whilst contradicting the original statements made in May 2007. The date of the report by the PJ who went to see Silvia Baptista and John Hill about the paper for the posters was in October 2007....Rothley meeting in November 2007..Amy Tierney gets asked (out of the blue it seems) to explain it was her boyfriend who had the printer in the RI's April 2008...Does not take much imagination imo

Also there is no mention in Amy Tierney's May 2007 statement that she gets asked about the posters which is referred to in her RI statement. Was this said in the RI to cover the British Police (note British/Leicestershire) asking her about them so she could reply with her boyfriend story? We know how the mccanns have lied and twisted facts in the 'Maddie Was Here' documentary (Tony, this would be good to use in your case against the mccanns....show the judge how they have lied and twisted facts from the PJ files to match their story on national TV, especially the Smith sighting and what Martin Smith stated and was twisted to suit jane tanner...isn't this breaking the law?)

-----

Re the USB memory stick....To my knowledge the Kodak printer will just print whatever is on it. You cannot view and select what to print from the USB memory stick using the Kodak printer. This suggests there was only one file on the USB memory stick otherwise whatever else was on it would have been printed too. I need to look at exactly was printed from the USB stick...was it just the photo which they then wrote on, or was the writing already on the photo on the USB stick? Burning question I think

Also, why would anyone take a USB memory stick with them on a family holiday knowing you would never be able to view what was on it as you didn't have a computer or anything to view its contents. What is the point of taking it?

------

Didn't one of the witness statements say it was gerry mccann who had the posters? Not knowing the witness was there behind a hedge or something? And this was before midnight if I remember correctly...will have to find the statement and who it was

And why would ROB approach Amy Tierney at midnight with his USB memory stick when according to Silvia Batista she had already given photographs of Madeleine to the GNR?

The usb stick:

To print anything from a usb stick on the 'Tierney' printer had the problem that presumably anything else on that stick would be printed too. There was no facility to choose what to print.
So one might say it was lucky that the right photographs was printed.

The same usb stick had the equally out of date photo on it of Madeleine (looking about two or so) sitting in a chair.

Presumably that last poster was on A4 paper with a handwritten message (who's handwriting?) without giving even her name! Which would seem essential if someone saw a little lost girl who looked like this poster.

The large photocopier at OC could cope easily with hundreds of this poster. It remains very strange however, that the glossy photographs on quality paper were ready before the A4 poster. Especially as it seems the photocopier had a selection option with an usb stick.

It also remains curious why just these two photographs were chosen and why one would travel with two such images on a usb stick. If one should travel with a usb stick, I'd expect hundreds of photographs to be on it, not a few from two years earlier.
I also believe this usb stick was never retrieved.

The photo printer also worked on memory cards I believe and it would have been the most effective way to print one of the last holiday photographs - the one at the pool from the memory card.

The photo printer also worked on memory cards I believe and it would have been the most effective way to print one of the last holiday photographs - the one at the pool from the memory card.

Excellent point Tigger. They could have printed the poolside photo and the Tennis Girl photo that night as they were on that camera.....photos taken that day and a day previous, but opted to select and print a photo of a child from a year ago instead...Would anyone seriously do the same as the mccanns?

As I understand it, they transferred the photo from kate mccanns camera onto the USB memory stick? Otherwise as you say, why on earth are they taking a USB memory stick on holiday with an old photo of Maddie, and also when they were not in a position to view the contents of the USB memory stick in PDL (on the outset)

-----

As regards the entry terms which follow, this police was handed by the Guarda Nacional Republicada (GNR), four (4) 10 x 15 photographs on 'Kodak Xtralife Paper' which were given to that police force by family of the missing minor MADELEINE MCCANN on the day which the facts were reported.

In these photographs is the image of a minor, in all ways identical to the child of British nationality referenced above, in two distinct poses (two by two).

Just want to be clear at exactly what they printed. I interpret this as there being 2 different photo's on the USB memory stick to which they printed 2 copies of each photo? In total they printed 4 posters using this special paper?

---

John Hill informed us that the printing of large quantities of Madeleines photo was carried out by himself with the help of his wife, at the request of Russell O'Brien, a member of the McCann's group of friends, John Hill stated that the photograph the colour prints were made from a mobile data disk of the 'memory stick' kind that Russell O'Brien gave him on the morning of 4th May.

I think these posters have the potential of being explosive evidence against the mccanns, and could be their mistake. John Hill is saying 2 here

1) That he 'printed' (not photocopied) the posters
2) He printed the posters from the USB memory stick. Not from a computer but from the USB memory stick supplied from Russell O'Brien. Which would be the same USB memory stick he gave to Amy Tierney

There was a combination of printing and photocopying on the morning of the 4th May for the mass volume of posters using various laser printers and photocopiers. This statement from John Hill is saying the USB memory stick could be read from the OC printers as this is what he did. He did not print them using Amy Tierney's boyfriends printer but OC printers. Also, to be able to print mass copies of the poster then the PDF/JPEG file/s on the USB memory stick would have to have had the information writing already on it, and as they photocopied hundreds too then it is clear that the file on the USB memory stick had the same written information on it. For this to happen, then this would have had to be scanned somewhere for it to be on the USB memory stick. No mention anywhere of any scanning

If we can prove it, I think the posters from the night of May 3rd on the special paper would all be identical with the writing on it. In other words, taking the mcanns at face value that these were printed at 24.00 using Amy Tierney boyfriends printer, then the writing on the poster would have had to be already on the file on the USB memory stick. How within 2 hours did they do this? Print it out, write on it, and then scan it back onto the USB memory stick. They would have been able to print in the first place then for starters, so why the Amy Tierney boyfriend printer story?

The Memory Stick is the one thing I am stuck on.

Was it either a USB memory Stick or just a Memory stick from a Camera?

If it was a USB stick there HAD to be a Computer/Laptop involved.

If it was a Memory stick from a Camera, I can understand the photos but PDF Files are not produced from camera's.

To make a Poster, would be impossible unless handwritten and then photocopied?

Guest wrote:Why if the McCanns had a photo of Madeleine in the tennis court, that Kate said she took on her camera, on the Wed or Tues, (and which JT says she took) would they release a picture of Madleine that was so old. Why not release an up to date image, surely this is better than an old photo where the child has changed so much and looks so different.

There is only ONE reason that I can think of.

IF something happened to Maddie earlier in the week then they could not risk using a photo of what she looked like during the week.

The tennis balls pic and the last photo would IDENTIFY the clothing she was wearing as well, and someone may have a recollection to remember seeing Maddie in that outfit EARLIER IN THE WEEK.

We know that one of the tapas children resembled Maddie as according to Miguel Matias, he was SURE that it was Maddie dancing with her father at the Paraiso, when we KNOW from CCTV pics that Maddie was not there. (many know that I believe this happened with some of the witnesses)



They needed to use a photo of a child that witnesses were NOT familiar with (a younger Maddie) so there could not be any chance of witnesses saying they saw Maddie (from last pic or tennis balls pc) but they HADN'T seen her since eg Sunday/Monday. 

The CHOSEN photo could likely be attributed to another child



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I remember discussing this on the 3As many moons ago.

The Kodak Easyshare G600 (there is no G60) was designed primarily as a docking device for Kodak Easyshare cameras - they were in a way synonomous.

If you owned the printer you almost certainly owned a compatible camera.

You could ONLY print from a USB stick with your own compatible camera in the dock (cradle on top of the printer).

With your camera in the dock you could view the images on the USB stick, select and print as required - case solved :-)

A neighbour of mine owned a very similar Kodak Dye Sub printer back in the day and it was nothing but trouble. The inks and paper were prohibitively expensive. If it was left idle for any amount of time it required numerous head cleans to get it working again - definitely NOT the type of gadget young people would ever dream of dragging around Europe IMVHO.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

.

jd wrote:

The photo printer also worked on memory cards I believe and it would have been the most effective way to print one of the last holiday photographs - the one at the pool from the memory card.

Excellent point Tigger. They could have printed the poolside photo and the Tennis Girl photo that night as they were on that camera.....photos taken that day and a day previous, but opted to select and print a photo of a child from a year ago instead...Would anyone seriously do the same as the mccanns?

As I understand it, they transferred the photo from kate mccanns camera onto the USB memory stick? Otherwise as you say, why on earth are they taking a USB memory stick on holiday with an old photo of Maddie, and also when they were not in a position to view the contents of the USB memory stick in PDL (on the outset)

-----

As regards the entry terms which follow, this police was handed by the Guarda Nacional Republicada (GNR), four (4) 10 x 15 photographs on 'Kodak Xtralife Paper' which were given to that police force by family of the missing minor MADELEINE MCCANN on the day which the facts were reported.

In these photographs is the image of a minor, in all ways identical to the child of British nationality referenced above, in two distinct poses (two by two).

Just want to be clear at exactly what they printed. I interpret this as there being 2 different photo's on the USB memory stick to which they printed 2 copies of each photo? In total they printed 4 posters using this special paper?

---

John Hill informed us that the printing of large quantities of Madeleines photo was carried out by himself with the help of his wife, at the request of Russell O'Brien, a member of the McCann's group of friends, John Hill stated that the photograph the colour prints were made from a mobile data disk of the 'memory stick' kind that Russell O'Brien gave him on the morning of 4th May.

I think these posters have the potential of being explosive evidence against the mccanns, and could be their mistake. John Hill is saying 2 here

1) That he 'printed' (not photocopied) the posters
2) He printed the posters from the USB memory stick. Not from a computer but from the USB memory stick supplied from Russell O'Brien. Which would be the same USB memory stick he gave to Amy Tierney

There was a combination of printing and photocopying on the morning of the 4th May for the mass volume of posters using various laser printers and photocopiers. This statement from John Hill is saying the USB memory stick could be read from the OC printers as this is what he did. He did not print them using Amy Tierney's boyfriends printer but OC printers. Also, to be able to print mass copies of the poster then the PDF/JPEG file/s on the USB memory stick would have to have had the information writing already on it, and as they photocopied hundreds too then it is clear that the file on the USB memory stick had the same written information on it. For this to happen, then this would have had to be scanned somewhere for it to be on the USB memory stick. No mention anywhere of any scanning

If we can prove it, I think the posters from the night of May 3rd on the special paper would all be identical with the writing on it. In other words, taking the mcanns at face value that these were printed at 24.00 using Amy Tierney boyfriends printer, then the writing on the poster would have had to be already on the file on the USB memory stick. How within 2 hours did they do this? Print it out, write on it, and then scan it back onto the USB memory stick. They would have been able to print in the first place then for starters, so why the Amy Tierney boyfriend printer story?

I never understood why a USB stick ever entered the equation. 
Assuming Hill WAS  given a USB stick , why wouldn't he plug into into a USB port on one of the OC desktops and print from there? I used to work for an IT company - all employees could do this, I NEVER  in my life saw anyone insert a USB stick into a printer. You would do it from a PC so you chose no. of copies, double sided printing etc. 

But the main thing that bothers me is - as some others have posted - why WOULD you have a USB stick with photos (JPGs on it in the first place). From my experience you either insert the SD card (from the camera)  into the PC directly (would be interesting to know when this facility was first available on PCs ) or via a USB connected SD card reader. OR the picture came from a phone in which case you would either Bluetooth the picture to the PC or connect the phone to the PC and upload the JPEG directly to the PC for printing.

Personally I think the USB thingy has got lost in translation, literally. It's presence doesn't make sense on any level.

Edit- one final option I overlooked - connected ANY camera to any desktop PC in the OC IT network. You don't even have to use Pictbridge, you could upload the JPEG without any specific software. The camera  wouldn't need to be the original one that contains the pic , just a camera with the relevant SD card. The desktop PC will read a camera (or a phone) as an external drive and use Windows explorer to upload the pic/JPEG.

Hi all, I am new to the Forum, hoping to bump this thread!

It seems there is no actual Kodak "Easyshare G60" printer, I cannot find any information about Kodak making one, although there is a "G600" which in theory must be the printer in question.

If we can verify the printer from AT is the G600 then they have used the "PictBrige" usb connection to connect to the Canon Powershot A620 to print off any photo they wanted to from the Canon Camera.

The printer itself does not have any "memory stick or USB stick" reader itself!

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Post merged

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]:  You have now posted comments on the same subject on three different threads.  Unless commenting on another topic, would your please confine your posts to one thread only.

Thank you. Mod

It seems there is no actual Kodak "Easyshare G60" printer, I cannot find any information about Kodak making one, although there is a "G600" which in theory must be the printer in question.

If we can verify the printer from AT is the G600 then they have used the "PictBrige" usb connection to connect to the Canon Powershot A620 to print off any photo they wanted to from the Canon Camera.

The printer itself does not have any "memory stick or USB stick" reader itself!