tennis ball photo

by russiandoll 02.01.12 10:32

Appears to me whenever I look at this that the head does not sit properly on the shoulders, but looks like Maddie's face. Problem is, this face looks so much more mature than any others, so I am puzzled by the seeming age differences.
I tend to think that the pool photo was taken 28th April, however that photo gives me the impression of real heat, like summer heat rather than spring. If it was taken 2007, I reckon it had to be on an earlier much warmer day than 3 May.

by juliet 08.01.12 21:14

Alex Woolfall, a big shot at the big-shot Bell Pottinger damage limitation/PR group, rushed into PdL and told some long story about going throught the McCann camera with the tragic couple and picking out full face shots of Madeleine, a day after she disappeared.

What shots were those? The dodgy playground pics?

Why couldn't Mr Woolfall find the Last Picture...why couldn't the McCanns produce it until 3 weeks later?

And why did Bell Pottinger already have a team at Mark Warner, PdL, as some sort of "exercise"? Tiny sleepy Portuguese family resort, overrun by PR and media types, doctors and stooges, in the same week a small girl vanishes.

by jd 08.01.12 23:30

The reason they couldn't find the last photo on the camera is because it wasn't on there. Look at the PJ files and this photo is not on the camera. And it comes after 3 weeks after gerry mccann went back to the uk...you don't need to be an Einstein to work this one out. Not on camera, only comes out after he has been through the photo albums in the UK...after Philomena said this is what he went back to the UK for

And you picked on a very important point Juliet "And why did Bell Pottinger already have a team at Mark Warner,".....Nobody seems to have been picked up on their involvement in this. The scam has been heavily disguised to deflect their name being involved...on purpose!!!!! This was the point of it!! Bell Pottinger and Mark Warner and Ocean Club

As soon as I can prove it, someone very close to home also has an interest in OC/MW in PDL....and the scam will all make sense

by Angelique 09.01.12 2:17

jd

You wrote:

"As soon as I can prove it, someone very close to home also has an interest in OC/MW in PDL....and the scam will all make sense"

This is music to my ears and I await any further updates! smilie

by **PeterMac** 09.01.12 8:27

Just to complete the story.
Have a look at the Wiki entry for Lord Bell, the founder of Bell P.
Third paragraph.
Priceless.

by **tigger** 09.01.12 8:42

PeterMac wrote:Just to complete the story.
Have a look at the Wiki entry for Lord Bell, the founder of Bell P.
Third paragraph.
Priceless.

O dear! No-one thought to change that particular entry in Wiki? Whilst such sterling clean-up work was done on the B-P entry and all their clients. Also advised the Iraq government on democracy.... wow!

by Guest 09.01.12 9:00

The arrival in Luz of Control Risks Group ("CRG")

In the early afternoon of Sunday 13th May 2007, Miss Tanner spoke to “some of the people that Kate and Gerry brought in” (believed to be Control Risks Group (CRG) whose two senior investigators—Kenneth Farrow and Michael Keenan— arrived in Faro on the British Airways flight from Gatwick that morning) and told them about her sighting of “the person”. It is probable (but this is not clear from the CD or from the Leicestershire Police interviews) that she told CRG (as she had earlier told the Portuguese Police) that she could identify the “abductor” if she were to see him in profile and in context.

The involvement of CRG is important. The company was apparently retained as part of a “crisis management” team by Bell Pottinger on behalf of Mark Warner. Some CRG specialist were probably in Luz before 13th May 2007 but Mr Farrow is the ex-head of the Economic Crime Unit in the City of London Police and Mr Keenan an ex-Superintendent from the Metropolitan Police with specialist fraud and investigative experience.

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

by PrissyCrissy 11.01.12 23:08

Newbie here so please be merciful.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] There is a photo on Pamalam's site under family photos. Less than halfway down the page, there's a photo of Kate wearing a gray shirt. She's holding Amelie, who is wearing a peach/orange shirt with pink ruffles at the sleeve and bottom hems. Is this the same shirt Amelie wore in the last (pool) photo? It appears to be the same to me, but the fit is more snug, and the shirt looks shorter. Can someone look at this and see what you think? The date above the photo is 5/12/07. I apologize if this was addressed already.

Thanks

by Guest 11.01.12 23:24

to the forum PrissyCrissy.

by **sharonl** 11.01.12 23:41

PrissyCrissy wrote:Newbie here so please be merciful.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] There is a photo on Pamalam's site under family photos. Less than halfway down the page, there's a photo of Kate wearing a gray shirt. She's holding Amelie, who is wearing a peach/orange shirt with pink ruffles at the sleeve and bottom hems. Is this the same shirt Amelie wore in the last (pool) photo? It appears to be the same to me, but the fit is more snug, and the shirt looks shorter. Can someone look at this and see what you think? The date above the photo is 5/12/07. I apologize if this was addressed already.

Thanks

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

by jd 11.01.12 23:44

This picture of kate....compare this to the ones at the time of May 3rd 2007 that were taken of her and she looks sooo much younger in this one, and you can't lie to the ones taken from the press in May 2007

by rainbow-fairy 12.01.12 7:23

The fit of the t-shirt certainly looks more 'snug'. One could be forgiven for thinking 'same tee, same child, year later' Wink

. Or maybe she was wearing an identical one that was Maddies so bigger. I don't think so, though

by Guest 12.01.12 8:44

If the one by the pool was brand new and after it had been washed in an unfamiliar washing machine it had shrunk, this would explain the new tighter version IMO.

by **tigger** 12.01.12 8:55

rainbow-fairy wrote:The fit of the t-shirt certainly looks more 'snug'. One could be forgiven for thinking 'same tee, same child, year later' . Or maybe she was wearing an identical one that was Maddies so bigger. I don't think so, though

It's clear to see that the t-hirt is much looser at the poolside. Look at the sleeves, her little arm seems rounder with Kate carrying her so 'motherly'. Every image I see of Kate and children has this weird dissociation, she might as well be holding a load of shopping. But could still be that there are two t shirt, one for Sean one for Amelie, Sean is much bigger. I still have a problem with that photo, could it be that it's Amelie who's pasted in and that's why she is missing her right upper arm? Because the sleeve on the right is nearly empty.
In any case: I think they'd been to Portugal before, say August/September. Possibly to have a look at the site. How else, leaving aside 'cruel fate' were they so unlucky as to get 5a?
imo the pool photo dates from that visit but was still changed.
Basically, the real problem we're dealing with in the whole affair, is to get down to their level of thinking. The whole thing is one long farce - or pantomime. The public thinks they can't have done it because they're doctors, they're not stupid. All together now: O yes they are!

by Guest 12.01.12 10:32

PrissyCrissy wrote:Newbie here so please be merciful.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] There is a photo on Pamalam's site under family photos. Less than halfway down the page, there's a photo of Kate wearing a gray shirt. She's holding Amelie, who is wearing a peach/orange shirt with pink ruffles at the sleeve and bottom hems. Is this the same shirt Amelie wore in the last (pool) photo? It appears to be the same to me, but the fit is more snug, and the shirt looks shorter. Can someone look at this and see what you think? The date above the photo is 5/12/07. I apologize if this was addressed already.

Thanks

In case there's any confusion over the date when the photo in question was taken, it's 12th May 2007 and not 5th December 2007.

On second thoughts I'm probably the only one who was confused!

by joyce1938 12.01.12 10:44

A possable answer to 2 sizes t shirt amelie wore could be ,the 2 girls had same sirt ,the larger one worn in 2nd picture. i often bought mey sons identical tops ,the next year the younger got the older boys one to wear,so he got the hand down .just a thought joyce1938

by rainbow-fairy 12.01.12 12:23

["tigger]["rainbow-fairy"]rainbow-fairy wrote:

The fit of the t-shirt certainly looks more 'snug'. One could be forgiven for thinking 'same tee, same child, year later' . Or maybe she was wearing an identical one that was Maddies so bigger. I don't think so, though

It's clear to see that the T-shirt is much looser at the poolside. Look at the sleeves, her little arm seems rounder with Kate carrying her so 'motherly'. Every image I see of Kate and children has this weird dissociation, she might as well be holding a load of shopping. But could still be that there are two t shirt, one for Sean one for Amelie, Sean is much bigger. I still have a problem with that photo, could it be that it's Amelie who's pasted in and that's why she is missing her right upper arm? Because the sleeve on the right is nearly empty.
In any case: I think they'd been to Portugal before, say August/September. Possibly to have a look at the site. How else, leaving aside 'cruel fate' were they so unlucky as to get 5a?
imo the pool photo dates from that visit but was still changed.
Basically, the real problem we're dealing with in the whole affair, is to get down to their level of thinking. The whole thing is one long farce - or pantomime. The public thinks they can't have done it because they're doctors, they're not stupid. All together now: O yes they are!

And more stupid still are those members of the public who still believe them...
I totally agree with you tigger, the bit in bold. I've always though this and actually finished your sentence in my own head quicker than I read it. My ending was 'a sack of spuds'! Wink

It all stands to reason, though, the children are talked about in the same way and vein as 'possessions', not human beings in their own right. I guess its easier for K+G to de-personalise them, its a feature of the narcissistic and psychopathic to treat all those around them as possessions. To be used, abused and discarded when they are ultimately of no more use to them. Poor little Madeleine. Its painful for me to think of the life I believe she was forces to lead.
I certainly lean towards the view that the McCanns had been to PdL and OC before, I would say 2006. This would account for a lot of the anomalies surrounding the photo (weather conditions, size of children etc) and of course, why it wasn't available until AFTER Gerry had briefly re-visited this country.

Stella,
A shrinking mishap with an unfamiliar washing machine could well account for the smallness of the t-shirt, though it doesn't have that misshapen, 'raggy' look of something that has been shrunk, to me. I wonder though if Madeleine herself had been put through the wash? Maybe that would explain her shrinking in between the alleged 'Mon/Tue tennis ball' pic and the 'last day pool pic'!?! That child has got to be a good two years smaller I'd say...
_______________________________________________

by Guest 12.01.12 12:30

Talk of a substitute? winkwink

no never... sarcastic

by Guest 12.01.12 12:53

There was an early newspaper quote (can't remember which one but it's here somewhere) that Kate felt safe in PDL leaving the children because they had been there before. It could of course be a journalistic error (as unlikely as that may seem!) but, thinking of how early reports on events like 9/11 and 7/7 disappeared because they didn't tally with the official verdicts, who knows?

by jd 13.01.12 22:00

We've all seen the Last Photo that gerry went back to the UK to get 3 weeks after the fairytale began:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Below I have cropped the photo of Maddie only
Note: Amelie & gerrys arms
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The below picture was used by the mccanns at Brussels European Parliament to promote the child alert system PowerPoint presentation
declaration 10/04/2008....Amelie & gerry are gone!

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

This proves 100% and without any shred of doubt that photoshopping does go on with their photo releases. Which way round is it in this Last Photo picture? On closer analyse, the Powerpoint photo has a 'blur' around Maddie which suggests she has been pasted in, or perhaps Amelie and gerry have been removed as the background behind Maddie is also heavily blurred. Looking closer still, the green weeds to the right of Maddies arm is the same, the edge of the pool where Amelie was seems to have gone, and the shadow above the wall from the sun lounger has gone as has also the end of the sun lounger itself

If the original of this photo was just gerry on his own with Maddie, Amelie and the sun lounger immediately behind gerry pasted in, we can also use the results of a software App called Photo Police, which shows on photos that have been photoshopped. The grey areas are parts of the picture in which the photo has not been photoshopped and is in the original, the colours/images are the ones that have been. I give the benefit of the doubt to this software and it has produced interesting results

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

by rainbow-fairy 13.01.12 22:51

jd, am I seeing/reading this correctly? If I am, it shows both Madeleine and Amelie shopped in, not Gerry, but possibly the top of the sun lounger and a bush?
Is that right?
Whatever, that is a fascinating picture...

by jd 13.01.12 22:57

rainbow-fairy wrote:jd, am I seeing/reading this correctly? If I am, it shows both Madeleine and Amelie shopped in, not Gerry, but possibly the top of the sun lounger and a bush?
Is that right?
Whatever, that is a fascinating picture...

Yes you are right. It suggests that the original photo only had gerry in it on his own which in its own way makes sense

by rainbow-fairy 13.01.12 23:36

jd wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:jd, am I seeing/reading this correctly? If I am, it shows both Madeleine and Amelie shopped in, not Gerry, but possibly the top of the sun lounger and a bush?
Is that right?
Whatever, that is a fascinating picture...

Yes you are right. It suggests that the original photo only had gerry in it on his own which in its own way makes sense

Lol

Just reading your reply about Gerry I had a song popped into my head
"You're so vain, you probably think this song is about you, you're so vain...". Yes Carly Simon, coulda been written 'specially for our Gerald...
Or perhaps Culturebeat "Mr Vain".
Yes, our Gerald thinks he's quite the catch (add delusions to the narcissism and psychopathy Wink

)

by uppatoffee 13.01.12 23:46

The composition of the photo certainly makes more sense with just Gerry in it.

by Pershing36 14.01.12 0:39

My partner has just looked at the pictures in this case on page 6. She has never followed this case, she was looking over my shoulder. Without reading anything on this forum she is convinced that the skirting board girl, ice cream girl and the Murat and daughter are the same child.