Re: Photographs

by Judge Mental 02.11.10 15:08

Shibboleth wrote:No body = no post mortem. Simple as that.

One is most inclined to agree. Which is why one considers the the Gaspars statements to be of grave importance.

by Autumn 08.11.10 1:50

Does anyone have any info about the Madeleine photo in the 'still missing still missed' poster on the Findmadeleine Website ( download more posters section - bottom right)? Don't think I have seen this one before, although the pic is small at first glance I thought her hair seemed much longer and more blonde than in most photos. Please could someone more technically able than myself, post it here or give a link to a larger copy of the pic?

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

by ufercoffy 08.11.10 8:28

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

by sue xx 08.11.10 11:50

To me maddy looks older in the tennis ball photo than she does in the last photo taken of her ..

by Guest 08.11.10 13:38

There are quite a few people who agree with you Sue, myself included.

by Shibboleth 08.11.10 15:09

Stella wrote:There are quite a few people who agree with you Sue, myself included.

And me.

by Autumn 09.11.10 17:03

Thanks Ufercoffy roses

Any idea how old Madeleine would be in that pic?

by ufercoffy 09.11.10 18:50

Autumn wrote:Thanks Ufercoffy [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Any idea how old Madeleine would be in that pic?

Less than 4 I would say [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 11.12.10 15:49

Let's look back at this image.

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

Based on shadows falling in the same way it does on a sundial. What do you see?

I see a shadow from Gerry’s leg travelling from 7.00 to 1.00

The shadow inside the playhouse is more like 6.00 to 12.00

But where is the huge shadow from the playhouse that should be clearly visible on the right of it?

by listener 11.12.10 20:01

Hi, Have not posted about shadows before, but would add this – Looking at the tree shadow (to the right of the play thing), the shadow in the play thing, the large shadow bottom right of pic, the lack of shadow from the brown-haired child and Sean would indicate to me that the sun is roughly behind the photographer. What then appears wrong are the other shadows from Madeleine, GM and the three folk to the left. In fact the shadows from GM and the 3 behind and left of him do not appear to line up in the same direction - strange!

by theolivebranch 11.12.10 21:26

Good evening. Thankyou for posting the pictures that are supposed to be of Madeleine on the 2007 holiday in PdL. May I ask a big favour, being unable to do any more than c and p, would a computer clever person, in one post, please put the photos of the playground where Madeleine is coming out of the wendy house, the supposed last photo and the tennis photo, as these are said to all be of that holiday I would like to see them all together for comparison.
Many many thanks if this can be done [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] and any choc from the box I am munching from at the moment [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] isn't a smilie of chocs, so popcorn will have to do. Anyway thankyou.

by ufercoffy 11.12.10 21:44

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

I can't imagine the little girl in pics 2 + 3 wearing the little sundress in pic 1.

by theolivebranch 11.12.10 21:50

Ufercoffy, many thanks.

by Judge Mental 11.12.10 22:45

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

I can't imagine the little girl in pics 2 + 3 wearing the little sundress in pic 1.

Is there a reasonable explanation as to why Madeleine's left arm would appear to have cellulite in the pool photograph? Her right arm in the tennis ball photograph does not appear to have this. The upper arm also seems to be of a much longer length in the tennis ball photograph than is displayed in the pool photograph.

by **Jill Havern** 12.12.10 7:58

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

If you pause the Xmas 2008 appeal video at 34 seconds you can see that Maddie has either been photoshopped in to the last fake photo or photoshopped out for the appeal video as there is no sign of Amelie or Gerry's elbow.

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

by theolivebranch 12.12.10 10:38

Judge Mental wrote:
ufercoffy wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I can't imagine the little girl in pics 2 + 3 wearing the little sundress in pic 1.

Is there a reasonable explanation as to why Madeleine's left arm would appear to have cellulite in the pool photograph? Her right arm in the tennis ball photograph does not appear to have this. The upper arm also seems to be of a much longer length in the tennis ball photograph than is displayed in the pool photograph.

Imo the pool picture is of a chubbier Madeleine still with her cute turned up baby nose, more obvious when using my trusty magnifying glass. Yes she is smiling more so her nose is featuring into that cute face, but on closer inspection of the the other pictures, in particular the tennis one her arms are now slimmer, she is growing taller, and her nose has lost it's baby dimensions.
As I say, in my opinion, but I don't think for one moment that the pool picture is of Madeleine in april/may 2007.

by kikoraton 14.12.10 12:40

Does anyone know when these photos were released, and to whom? To a newspaper, or a news agency?
I think the pool picture took around 3 weeks to produce. That's clear evidence of manipulation. How about the play-park photos? When were they released?
For the time being (until the above questions can be answered) my guess is that the tennis photo is recent, but not from PdL, the play-park photos could be from 28 April (though one of them not shown here was clearly manipulated), and the poolside photo is of 3 May, with Maddie's head photoshopped onto another, smaller, girl's clothes and body.

by Judge Mental 14.12.10 17:03

Upon noting that the pool photograph is cropped at the legs, one wishes to know which area of the leg Madeleine is supposed to have had a birthmark. Was it on the upper, lower, back, front or side of the leg?

by Guest 15.12.10 12:46

Judge Mental wrote:Upon noting that the pool photograph is cropped at the legs, one wishes to know which area of the leg Madeleine is supposed to have had a birthmark. Was it on the upper, lower, back, front or side of the leg?

and I bet neither knee in that photo had a recent injury from airplane steps, which is probably why they had to be cut out. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Judge Mental 15.12.10 14:35

Stella wrote:
Judge Mental wrote:Upon noting that the pool photograph is cropped at the legs, one wishes to know which area of the leg Madeleine is supposed to have had a birthmark. Was it on the upper, lower, back, front or side of the leg?

and I bet neither knee in that photo had a recent injury from airplane steps, which is probably why they had to be cut out. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Daoud 16.12.10 11:35

Stella (Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:46 pm) wrote:
Judge Mental wrote:Upon noting that the pool photograph is cropped at the legs, one wishes to know which area of the leg Madeleine is supposed to have had a birthmark. Was it on the upper, lower, back, front or side of the leg?

and I bet neither knee in that photo had a recent injury from airplane steps, which is probably why they had to be cut out. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Au contraire - if the knees were cropped then it may well have been because there was a very recent injury from the steps.

ETA As for the shadows mentioned in earlier posts, it's important to establish how flat the grassy area around the pool is before making any deductions, as dips and hollows can dramatically alter the alignment of shadows.

by Judge Mental 16.12.10 12:39

Daoud (Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:35 am) wrote:
Stella (Wed Dec 15, 2010 12:46 pm) wrote:
Judge Mental wrote:Upon noting that the pool photograph is cropped at the legs, one wishes to know which area of the leg Madeleine is supposed to have had a birthmark. Was it on the upper, lower, back, front or side of the leg?

and I bet neither knee in that photo had a recent injury from airplane steps, which is probably why they had to be cut out. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Au contraire - if the knees were cropped then it may well have been because there was a very recent injury from the steps.

ETA As for the shadows mentioned in earlier posts, it's important to establish how flat the grassy area around the pool is before making any deductions, as dips and hollows can dramatically alter the alignment of shadows.

Would it not have served everyone's interests to show us any grazing of the skin via the photograph? If only to give a slightly more reasonable and plausible explanation for the blood in the grout of the tiles, and to save the embarrassment of saying Madeleine had nose-bleeds? Not to mention the painful excuse of the man who had allegedly stayed in 5A, telling his ridiculous story of him having had a shaving accident which allegedly caused him to bleed profusely.

One has never heard anything like some of the stories this case has thrown up. Talk about desperate necessity being the mother of invention!

And this is before we even begin to wander into the realms of the hired car having been used as some sort of mobile sluice room.

How these medical types could even consider putting raw and uncooked foodstuffs into a car which has been transporting used nappies is quite simply preposterous, ludicrous.and beyond belief.

by Daoud 16.12.10 13:13

Good morning Your Honour [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
First off - it's an assumption that the original photo showed Madeleine's knee or knees, so this is all highly speculative; but the point I was making is that there has been some debate on the date the 'last photograph' was taken, with some (including myself) thinking that April 28th 2007 is worth considering as an alternative to May 3rd 2007 - but alas, as seems to be the case so often in this affair, there just isn't enough reliable evidence available to come to a firm conclusion.

by Guest 16.12.10 13:33

Daoud (Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:35 am) wrote:
ETA As for the shadows mentioned in earlier posts, it's important to establish how flat the grassy area around the pool is before making any deductions, as dips and hollows can dramatically alter the alignment of shadows.

Health and safety would not allow "dips and hollows" around a childrens play area. It is far too dangerous. They have to be flat, just like the tennis courts. There is also a big difference between a shorter shadow and no shadow at all. We must not forget the telling shadow inside the play house, at a different angle altogether.

by Daoud 16.12.10 13:44

Stella (Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:33 pm) wrote:
Daoud (Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:35 am) wrote:
ETA As for the shadows mentioned in earlier posts, it's important to establish how flat the grassy area around the pool is before making any deductions, as dips and hollows can dramatically alter the alignment of shadows.

Health and safety would not allow "dips and hollows" around a childrens play area. It is far too dangerous. They have to be flat, just like the tennis courts. There is also a big difference between a shorter shadow and no shadow at all. We must not forget the telling shadow inside the play house, at a different angle altogether.

Really? That's mind boggling - are Health and Safety unaware that most of the unpaved, untarmac'ed world is not flat. Far too dangerous? But maybe we have different understandings of 'dips and hollows'? Totally flat surfaces are almost invariably artificial are they not?

Log in for more topics