Re: What was so special about Burgau?

by j.rob 14.05.14 18:31

kimHager wrote:Hicks I'm with you on this I believe she wasn't alive when this picture was taken I pray I'm wrong but everyone can feel something isn't right... It's creepy... It's not pleasant. I too believe her head is being held up... Maybe a sick little last hurah from those responsible for her " disappearance "

There is a haunting quality to it. But it is more than the very sad look which is just chillling.

The way the photo as been shot, she is staring right down, right into the eyes of the observer. The eyes are full of sadness and - what else is this signifying? Reproach?

Also, the head angled back, almost as though someone could be holding her by the scruff of the neck. Like a hunter might hold up an animal.

This really is so disturbing.

I also cannot find a mention in Kate's book about the McCann visit to Sagre. Yet, in early newspaper reports, it is clearly reported that the family visited the town on April 30th. (When the Polish couple were caught taking suspicious photos by another holiday maker.

I think I also read reports that the McCann's claim someone tried to photograph Madeleine suspiciously at Sagre. But I am unable to find a reference to this in the book. Not in any of the sightings listed at the back. Yet surely this couple would be *key* witnesses as they appeared to be targetting girls of Madeleine's age.

Why no mention of this in the book?

And there is at least one independent eye-witness sighting of their visit, according to the reports in the press. Who noticed Kate with Madeleine. And Gerry pushing a buggy. Which the eye-witness thought was a bit odd, as s/he thought that Madeleine looked too old for a buggy. Which implies it was a single buggy with no child in. So therefore the twins were not on that visit??

In chapter 4 of her book, Kate records what they did on each day of the holiday in a reasonable amount of detail. With the exception of Monday 30 April. She glosses over this by suggesting that each day they followed a similar routine.

But they clearly didn't follow this routine if they visited Sagre on 30th April.

I wonder what connection, if any, there is between their visit to Sagre and the Polish couple taking suspicious photos of another man's children?

by Guest 14.05.14 20:11

j.rob - some info here:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1581-the-mccanns-family-trip-to-sagres-30th-april?highlight=Monday+30th+April

by j.rob 14.05.14 20:53

Hicks wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
Angelique wrote:Not sure if it has been said already but I think both the "balcony picture" and the "ice-cream picture" are taken in the same place. Or, Madeleine has been photoshopped into a picture of the balcony.

The blue and white in the top left hand corner on the ice-cream picture could be the chair and the edge of the white table.

Hicks: the blue object might be a plastic chair.
NFWD, I 'm referring to the blue in the make up photo. I agree that the blue in the ice cream pic looks like a chair in the background. To me it does looks plastic whereas in the make up photo the blue has slight folds almost like the top of a t-shirt.

To my mind, this photo is so obviously not a genuine photo. There is an obvious gap between the lower arm and hand and the upper arm. Plus the lower arm and hand are at the wrong angle to the upper arm. Also, there is no real indication that a third party is holding the ice-cream. I think it is *supposed* to be Madeleine's arm.

This photo also very obviously brings to mind Portuguese detective Amaral's astonishment at Gerry McCann's demeanor and behaviour when - speaking to police within days of Madeleine's "abduction" - he was lolling around sucking on a lolly pop and taking a more than surprising interest in "footie" - an interest that Jane Tanner (in that cringeworthy 'reconstruction' in Madeleine was Here') found excessively funny when Gerry spent longer than expected in the apartment when "checking" the children on Thursday 3rd May.

This is a dig at Amaral, among other things

God they REPULSE me.

by Nina 14.05.14 21:01

j.rob wrote:
Hicks wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
Angelique wrote:Not sure if it has been said already but I think both the "balcony picture" and the "ice-cream picture" are taken in the same place. Or, Madeleine has been photoshopped into a picture of the balcony.

The blue and white in the top left hand corner on the ice-cream picture could be the chair and the edge of the white table.

Hicks: the blue object might be a plastic chair.
NFWD, I 'm referring to the blue in the make up photo. I agree that the blue in the ice cream pic looks like a chair in the background. To me it does looks plastic whereas in the make up photo the blue has slight folds almost like the top of a t-shirt.

To my mind, this photo is so obviously not a genuine photo. There is an obvious gap between the lower arm and hand and the upper arm. Plus the lower arm and hand are at the wrong angle to the upper arm. Also, there is no real indication that a third party is holding the ice-cream. I think it is *supposed* to be Madeleine's arm.

This photo also very obviously brings to mind Portuguese detective Amaral's astonishment at Gerry McCann's demeanor and behaviour when - speaking to police within days of Madeleine's "abduction" - he was lolling around sucking on a lolly pop and taking a more than surprising interest in "footie" - an interest that Jane Tanner (in that cringeworthy 'reconstruction' in Madeleine was Here') found excessively funny when Gerry spent longer than expected in the apartment when "checking" the children on Thursday 3rd May.

This is a dig at Amaral, among other things

God they REPULSE me.

On the top picture, the balcony, enlarge to 500 magnification. Then reduce to normal for the second picture. The tiles are the same. Imo these were taken at the same time. fun and games, maybe a bit of giddy 'be a monster' chasing, and dressing up and ice creams and treats. All ploys of a certain group of people to get the subject high and excited. Then when they are more pliant.........................................

by kimHager 14.05.14 23:37

I still think Maddy had something wrong with her arms or hands....they just dont look normal in any picture of her..maybe they had bruises that possibly got called a sunburn?
nina ugh...i think you hit the nail spot on.

by petunia 14.05.14 23:55

if you look at the ice cream pic the hand holding the spoon/ lolly is a child's hand the one holding the ice cream has longer finger's imo so isn't a child's hand.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 14.05.14 23:57

petunia wrote:if you look at the ice cream pic the hand holding the spoon/ lolly is a child's hand the one holding the ice cream has longer finger's imo so isn't a child's hand.

I agree.

by Wahrheit 15.05.14 12:35

j.rob wrote:
Hicks wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
Angelique wrote:Not sure if it has been said already but I think both the "balcony picture" and the "ice-cream picture" are taken in the same place. Or, Madeleine has been photoshopped into a picture of the balcony.

The blue and white in the top left hand corner on the ice-cream picture could be the chair and the edge of the white table.

Hicks: the blue object might be a plastic chair.
NFWD, I 'm referring to the blue in the make up photo. I agree that the blue in the ice cream pic looks like a chair in the background. To me it does looks plastic whereas in the make up photo the blue has slight folds almost like the top of a t-shirt.

To my mind, this photo is so obviously not a genuine photo. There is an obvious gap between the lower arm and hand and the upper arm. Plus the lower arm and hand are at the wrong angle to the upper arm. Also, there is no real indication that a third party is holding the ice-cream. I think it is *supposed* to be Madeleine's arm.

This photo also very obviously brings to mind Portuguese detective Amaral's astonishment at Gerry McCann's demeanor and behaviour when - speaking to police within days of Madeleine's "abduction" - he was lolling around sucking on a lolly pop and taking a more than surprising interest in "footie" - an interest that Jane Tanner (in that cringeworthy 'reconstruction' in Madeleine was Here') found excessively funny when Gerry spent longer than expected in the apartment when "checking" the children on Thursday 3rd May.

This is a dig at Amaral, among other things

God they REPULSE me.

If you look at the left forearm in the ice cream picture there are 2 distinct colours. Pink above and a darker flesh tone below.Given that this is a low grade image (maybe from a video?) it is possible that the pink upper section belongs to a belt or a sash which has "merged" with the arm. It is possible, also, to see a continuation of the "belt" on the other side of the cone about where her middle finger ends. If you follow the line of the darker tone downward the hand position seems more reasonable. The photo is strange but the hand/arm, in my view, is not photoshopped but that impression is caused by the low grade image. Without seeing a higher definition version it is impossible to be sure.

by Guest 15.05.14 12:46

Am I the only one who thinks this ice-cream just too suggestive?
Purposefully so, especially in connection with the lollysucking?

Everything about it stinks

IMO

by bobbin 15.05.14 13:44

Wahrheit wrote:
j.rob wrote:
Hicks wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
Angelique wrote:Not sure if it has been said already but I think both the "balcony picture" and the "ice-cream picture" are taken in the same place. Or, Madeleine has been photoshopped into a picture of the balcony.

The blue and white in the top left hand corner on the ice-cream picture could be the chair and the edge of the white table.

Hicks: the blue object might be a plastic chair.
NFWD, I 'm referring to the blue in the make up photo. I agree that the blue in the ice cream pic looks like a chair in the background. To me it does looks plastic whereas in the make up photo the blue has slight folds almost like the top of a t-shirt.

To my mind, this photo is so obviously not a genuine photo. There is an obvious gap between the lower arm and hand and the upper arm. Plus the lower arm and hand are at the wrong angle to the upper arm. Also, there is no real indication that a third party is holding the ice-cream. I think it is *supposed* to be Madeleine's arm.

This photo also very obviously brings to mind Portuguese detective Amaral's astonishment at Gerry McCann's demeanor and behaviour when - speaking to police within days of Madeleine's "abduction" - he was lolling around sucking on a lolly pop and taking a more than surprising interest in "footie" - an interest that Jane Tanner (in that cringeworthy 'reconstruction' in Madeleine was Here') found excessively funny when Gerry spent longer than expected in the apartment when "checking" the children on Thursday 3rd May.

This is a dig at Amaral, among other things

God they REPULSE me.
If you look at the left forearm in the ice cream picture there are 2 distinct colours. Pink above and a darker flesh tone below.Given that this is a low grade image (maybe from a video?) it is possible that the pink upper section belongs to a belt or a sash which has "merged" with the arm. It is possible, also, to see a continuation of the "belt" on the other side of the cone about where her middle finger ends. If you follow the line of the darker tone downward the hand position seems more reasonable. The photo is strange but the hand/arm, in my view, is not photoshopped but that impression is caused by the low grade image. Without seeing a higher definition version it is impossible to be sure.

Wahrheit, look at the length of Maddie's right arm from shoulder to elbow. Then look at her left arm, shoulder to where elbow would be. The elbow would be below the bottom edge of the photo as we see it.
Now look at how the severed fore-arm, elbow to wrist of the left arm, lies, and you'll see that it cannot possibly connect up to the arm because the elbow is lower than the horizontal level of the forearm.
I do not see how anyone can NOT see that this spare bit of arm, holding a sickeningly suggestive ice cream, is anything other than photo-shopped in, and seriously badly at that.
I think it would be more important to consider WHY it has been photo-shopped in rather than IF.
Furthermore, if anyone has ever eaten an ice cream like that, they would know that trying to hold it in the flimsy finger tip grip that Maddie's severed arm appears to be doing it would not be supported enough and would topple, to become a tear wrenching, tragic mess on the pavement.
Poor Maddie, she couldn't even have a simple ice-cream without being publicly remembered for its vile innuendo.

by Wahrheit 15.05.14 14:31

bobbin wrote:
Wahrheit wrote:
j.rob wrote:
Hicks wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
Angelique wrote:Not sure if it has been said already but I think both the "balcony picture" and the "ice-cream picture" are taken in the same place. Or, Madeleine has been photoshopped into a picture of the balcony.

The blue and white in the top left hand corner on the ice-cream picture could be the chair and the edge of the white table.

Hicks: the blue object might be a plastic chair.
NFWD, I 'm referring to the blue in the make up photo. I agree that the blue in the ice cream pic looks like a chair in the background. To me it does looks plastic whereas in the make up photo the blue has slight folds almost like the top of a t-shirt.

To my mind, this photo is so obviously not a genuine photo. There is an obvious gap between the lower arm and hand and the upper arm. Plus the lower arm and hand are at the wrong angle to the upper arm. Also, there is no real indication that a third party is holding the ice-cream. I think it is *supposed* to be Madeleine's arm.

This photo also very obviously brings to mind Portuguese detective Amaral's astonishment at Gerry McCann's demeanor and behaviour when - speaking to police within days of Madeleine's "abduction" - he was lolling around sucking on a lolly pop and taking a more than surprising interest in "footie" - an interest that Jane Tanner (in that cringeworthy 'reconstruction' in Madeleine was Here') found excessively funny when Gerry spent longer than expected in the apartment when "checking" the children on Thursday 3rd May.

This is a dig at Amaral, among other things

God they REPULSE me.
If you look at the left forearm in the ice cream picture there are 2 distinct colours. Pink above and a darker flesh tone below.Given that this is a low grade image (maybe from a video?) it is possible that the pink upper section belongs to a belt or a sash which has "merged" with the arm. It is possible, also, to see a continuation of the "belt" on the other side of the cone about where her middle finger ends. If you follow the line of the darker tone downward the hand position seems more reasonable. The photo is strange but the hand/arm, in my view, is not photoshopped but that impression is caused by the low grade image. Without seeing a higher definition version it is impossible to be sure.
Wahrheit, look at the length of Maddie's right arm from shoulder to elbow. Then look at her left arm, shoulder to where elbow would be. The elbow would be below the bottom edge of the photo as we see it.
Now look at how the severed fore-arm, elbow to wrist of the left arm, lies, and you'll see that it cannot possibly connect up to the arm because the elbow is lower than the horizontal level of the forearm.
I do not see how anyone can NOT see that this spare bit of arm, holding a sickeningly suggestive ice cream, is anything other than photo-shopped in, and seriously badly at that.
I think it would be more important to consider WHY it has been photo-shopped in rather than IF.
Furthermore, if anyone has ever eaten an ice cream like that, they would know that trying to hold it in the flimsy finger tip grip that Maddie's severed arm appears to be doing it would not be supported enough and would topple, to become a tear wrenching, tragic mess on the pavement.
Poor Maddie, she couldn't even have a simple ice-cream without being publicly remembered for its vile innuendo.

It's certainly a strange photo. But I'm not convinced the arm - I'm not talking about anything else - is photoshopped. Here is my (bad) photoshop showing where the arm - blue (and the belt/band - orange) might be.

What was so special about Burgau? - Page 13 Mad16

What was so special about Burgau? - Page 13 Mad16

by Guest 15.05.14 15:00

Wahrheit wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Wahrheit wrote:
j.rob wrote:
Hicks wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
Angelique wrote:Not sure if it has been said already but I think both the "balcony picture" and the "ice-cream picture" are taken in the same place. Or, Madeleine has been photoshopped into a picture of the balcony.

The blue and white in the top left hand corner on the ice-cream picture could be the chair and the edge of the white table.

Hicks: the blue object might be a plastic chair.
NFWD, I 'm referring to the blue in the make up photo. I agree that the blue in the ice cream pic looks like a chair in the background. To me it does looks plastic whereas in the make up photo the blue has slight folds almost like the top of a t-shirt.

To my mind, this photo is so obviously not a genuine photo. There is an obvious gap between the lower arm and hand and the upper arm. Plus the lower arm and hand are at the wrong angle to the upper arm. Also, there is no real indication that a third party is holding the ice-cream. I think it is *supposed* to be Madeleine's arm.

This photo also very obviously brings to mind Portuguese detective Amaral's astonishment at Gerry McCann's demeanor and behaviour when - speaking to police within days of Madeleine's "abduction" - he was lolling around sucking on a lolly pop and taking a more than surprising interest in "footie" - an interest that Jane Tanner (in that cringeworthy 'reconstruction' in Madeleine was Here') found excessively funny when Gerry spent longer than expected in the apartment when "checking" the children on Thursday 3rd May.

This is a dig at Amaral, among other things

God they REPULSE me.
If you look at the left forearm in the ice cream picture there are 2 distinct colours. Pink above and a darker flesh tone below.Given that this is a low grade image (maybe from a video?) it is possible that the pink upper section belongs to a belt or a sash which has "merged" with the arm. It is possible, also, to see a continuation of the "belt" on the other side of the cone about where her middle finger ends. If you follow the line of the darker tone downward the hand position seems more reasonable. The photo is strange but the hand/arm, in my view, is not photoshopped but that impression is caused by the low grade image. Without seeing a higher definition version it is impossible to be sure.
Wahrheit, look at the length of Maddie's right arm from shoulder to elbow. Then look at her left arm, shoulder to where elbow would be. The elbow would be below the bottom edge of the photo as we see it.
Now look at how the severed fore-arm, elbow to wrist of the left arm, lies, and you'll see that it cannot possibly connect up to the arm because the elbow is lower than the horizontal level of the forearm.
I do not see how anyone can NOT see that this spare bit of arm, holding a sickeningly suggestive ice cream, is anything other than photo-shopped in, and seriously badly at that.
I think it would be more important to consider WHY it has been photo-shopped in rather than IF.
Furthermore, if anyone has ever eaten an ice cream like that, they would know that trying to hold it in the flimsy finger tip grip that Maddie's severed arm appears to be doing it would not be supported enough and would topple, to become a tear wrenching, tragic mess on the pavement.
Poor Maddie, she couldn't even have a simple ice-cream without being publicly remembered for its vile innuendo.

It's certainly a strange photo. But I'm not convinced the arm - I'm not talking about anything else - is photoshopped. Here is my (bad) photoshop showing where the arm - blue (and the belt/band - orange) might be.

With your method can you do the other arm too to see if they are of similar size and length?

by Snifferdog 15.05.14 15:11

Do people eat ice cream cones with a plastic spoon? I would think it very awkward and it may dislodge the ice cream from the cone.

by saratoga 15.05.14 15:14

That's a large ice cream cone - even taking into account perspective and hand-size (if a child's hand). The pic looks odd for so many reasons.

by Guest 15.05.14 15:15

Can quotes be kept to a minimum please, they are taking half a page, and it disrupts the flow.......thanks.

by AndyB 15.05.14 16:34

Wahrheit wrote:It's certainly a strange photo. But I'm not convinced the arm - I'm not talking about anything else - is photoshopped. Here is my (bad) photoshop showing where the arm - blue (and the belt/band - orange) might be.

I see what you're saying but the blue arm ignores the part of Madeleine that is bounded by the yellow/orange line below. I've put a red line across the top of the arm in the picture and you can see it causes the inside of her elbow to be in the middle of her bicep

What was so special about Burgau? - Page 13 ItLooksWrong_zps8fe4132a

What was so special about Burgau? - Page 13 ItLooksWrong_zps8fe4132a

by Wahrheit 15.05.14 16:37

If you look at the left forearm in the ice cream picture there are 2 distinct colours. Pink above and a darker flesh tone below.Given that this is a low grade image (maybe from a video?) it is possible that the pink upper section belongs to a belt or a sash which has "merged" with the arm. It is possible, also, to see a continuation of the "belt" on the other side of the cone about where her middle finger ends. If you follow the line of the darker tone downward the hand position seems more reasonable. The photo is strange but the hand/arm, in my view, is not photoshopped but that impression is caused by the low grade image. Without seeing a higher definition version it is impossible to be sure.
Wahrheit, look at the length of Maddie's right arm from shoulder to elbow. Then look at her left arm, shoulder to where elbow would be. The elbow would be below the bottom edge of the photo as we see it.
Now look at how the severed fore-arm, elbow to wrist of the left arm, lies, and you'll see that it cannot possibly connect up to the arm because the elbow is lower than the horizontal level of the forearm.
I do not see how anyone can NOT see that this spare bit of arm, holding a sickeningly suggestive ice cream, is anything other than photo-shopped in, and seriously badly at that.
I think it would be more important to consider WHY it has been photo-shopped in rather than IF.
Furthermore, if anyone has ever eaten an ice cream like that, they would know that trying to hold it in the flimsy finger tip grip that Maddie's severed arm appears to be doing it would not be supported enough and would topple, to become a tear wrenching, tragic mess on the pavement.
Poor Maddie, she couldn't even have a simple ice-cream without being publicly remembered for its vile innuendo.

It's certainly a strange photo. But I'm not convinced the arm - I'm not talking about anything else - is photoshopped. Here is my (bad) photoshop showing where the arm - blue (and the belt/band - orange) might be.

With your method can you do the other arm too to see if they are of similar size and length?

It's hard because of the perspective and I'm not sure it would be reliable, but if it helps I used the arm of a kid I found on google as a cross-check. He looked a bit older than 4 and, of course, we are all different sizes but his arm was pretty good fit nonetheless.

by Wahrheit 15.05.14 16:47

AndyB wrote:
Wahrheit wrote:It's certainly a strange photo. But I'm not convinced the arm - I'm not talking about anything else - is photoshopped. Here is my (bad) photoshop showing where the arm - blue (and the belt/band - orange) might be.
I see what you're saying but the blue arm ignores the part of Madeleine that is bounded by the yellow/orange line below. I've put a red line across the top of the arm in the picture and you can see it causes the inside of her elbow to be in the middle of her bicep

My suggestion which I explained above - and it is only a suggestion - is that because it is such a low grade image, perhaps from a video, there may have been the mixing/merging of two distinct elements. Element 1 is a pink band or belt or similar which she is wearing around her waist which appears to go under her left bicep (The upper, lighter shade. N.B. I added the orange to highlight this item) and the other is her arm (the lower darker shade). IF that is the case, I believe, the anatomy works (as shown) and the arm has not been photoshopped. If there is no belt/band then I can't explain it.

by AndyB 15.05.14 17:19

Got you, and there does appear to be a lighter section of "arm" in the original that you highlighted with the orange in your edit. I agree - it could be a belt of some description and, applying a little common sense, why on earth would anyone photoshop the picture to include an ice-cream?

by Nina 15.05.14 17:23

Looking at the ice cream and how soft it is I am amazed that it hasn't run all over the place, hand, dress, and all around her mouth and chin. She is dressed in a very lightweight top/dress which makes me think that it was warm, and yer the ice cream has melted, but not enough in my opinion.
I had one just like this last Friday and I was covered in it, so how very neat of Madeleine.

by Guest 15.05.14 17:30

Thank Warheit. It must be a perspective thing. As it seems a very large arm for a 4 year old girl, and a very large ice-cream. big grin

by Wahrheit 15.05.14 18:00

dantezebu wrote:Thank Warheit. It must be a perspective thing. As it seems a very large arm for a 4 year old girl, and a very large ice-cream.

I ain't personally ever seen an ice cream that big myself. The arm seems about right - maybe it could be a bit smaller - but IF there is a band then the bend in the elbow seems to be acceptable based on my rough experiment.

by Hicks 15.05.14 18:02

The hand holding the spoon just doesn't look right, the forefinger doesn't look long enough in relation to the other fingers.
Also if you magnify the photo Madeleine's right eye look weird, the eyeball is turned in to far.
It looks to me like she has eye make up on and lipstick.

Which ever way you look at this photo, imo it's purpose is to give the viewer an explicit insinuation. Sick. Just sick.

by j.rob 15.05.14 22:38

I think the release of those photos was,at least in part, a way of sticking two fingers up at Amaral. What exactly was the state of play between the McCircus camp and the Amaral camp at the time those photos were published? I think they were deliberately explicit, provocative and shocking in order to convey a message. Not least one of threatening contempt. Some people think they are above the law.

I am not a criminologist but I would imagine that a criminologist would be able to make some pertinent observations in connection with this case. Such a shame that we got lumbered with brown-nose Clarence Mitchell who is so full of hot air and an inflated sense of his own self-importance that it's astonishing he hasn't reached Mars by now (we can only hope he might end up there big grin

).

Gerry lolling around the police station sucking on a lollipop and taking an interest in 'footie' only a few days after his daughter disappeared would be in keeping with his extreme narcissism and love of power games and 'confusion' techniques in my opinion.

The police would have I imagine, quite understandably, been astounded by his provocative and contemptuous manner - towards not just them but also his daughter. Such was his 'hubris' that he, presumably, felt he was untouchable and the Portuguese 'sardine-munchers' wouldn't stand a chance.

What a cheek that there were reports in the media of how the police had long boozy lunches when, by their own admission, the McCAnns and their friends left their children alone every night to have long boozy dinners! They were the irresponsible ones from the very start, but try to pin the blame of their gross negligence (and probably worse) on everyone else. So arrogant and unpleasant.

Still, I guess that kind of behaviour is consistent with the personality trait that I suspect both McCanns have - and many of their friends no doubt.

To my mind, there is a direct parallel between Gerry's lolling around at the police station sucking on a lollipop days after Madeleine disappeared and the release of that deliberately provocative photo of Madeleine. It also ties in with Gerry's smirk throughout the press conference when the age-progressed photo of Madeleine is release which culminates in him bursting out into uncontrolled laughter.

Sorry, but whoever is supporting the McCircus is just SICK, SICK, SICK.

by Guest 20.05.14 12:25

What was so special about Burgau? - Page 13 Mwitha11

I know there has been a lot of discussion about this photograph. Does the hand with the ice cream belong to Maddie and so on.

I came across this copy on another forum, and it doesn't appear as clipped as others so seems to show her full arm.

It is a bad pic. very grainy, but thought it might be worth copying here.