Photos Madeleine

by **tigger** 20.07.11 21:33

Stella wrote:Thank you Miraflores for that confirmation.

This has to be hugely significant.

At the very least I expected to see the last photo and the tennis balls photo again, but if they are missing I can only assume that there is a very good reason for this.

Yes, quite. Tennis ball girl is much taller than 90 cm (height given by McC's) as tennis balls and girl are in the same plane and known diameter of tennisball, not allowing for the angle, more than 100 cm. She looks about 5. Other photos of little girls in pink show stubbier legs, masses of the photos are photoshopped. Quite a lot show make up (black eyelashes and blond eyebrows?) . Methinks there was too much obvious doctoring of the photos to include them in the book.
The photo with Kate, baby M and wildly grinning Gerry, which is in the book, is also shopped. He is wearing the same suit and tie he wore to court five years later and I believe someone knew her little jacket was in the shops rather later than the date of the photograph.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.07.11 23:13

dragonfly wrote:
Miraflores wrote:If you follow this link go to the reviews about the book. It takes you to the Amazon book reviews. Find the one written by S Grace - there are more than 4000 replies to his review. This must be a record in itself, but what is interesting, if you have been following it, is that there are a couple of people who initially bought the McCann's story of the abduction who have now had their eyes opened and begun to question. It's been a very interesting debate, .

far to much to read on the thread over 400 pages but I thought r s corbin summed it up well

Later on 3 of the Tapas 7 pick out Robert Murat, as a patsy, but the Portugeuse police are so convinced this is nonsense, they make them repeat their claims in front of him, which none of them do. Jane Tanner tries to add fire to the Robert Murat story, by picking him out as man who carried baby, but again retracts that, and later draws a e-fit of a man who looks nothing like him.

I'm afraid this bit from 'r s corbin' about Tanner, Murat, and the Tapas 3 who claimed to have seen Murat on the night of 3 May 2007, is really quite wrong.

Let's first of all establish the facts.

FIRST, on Sunday 13 May, Tanner picks out Murat as the man-carrying-a-child she claimed to have seen at 9.15pm on 3 May 2007. There appears to have been some skulduggery beforehand since Tanner had been enabled to see Murat earlier the same afternoon.

SECOND, on the strength of that identification evidence, and also on the basis of the very dubious 'profiling' done by MI5 agents, Control Risks Group and other shadowy figures, who had already said that 'Robert Murat fits the profile of the likely abductor 90%', Murat was pulled in for questioning the very next day (14 May) and soon after, made an arguido.

THIRD, in his police interview on 14 May, he lied in at least 17 important respects in stating what his movements were on 1,2,3 and 4 May. In his later police interviews on 10 and 11 July, he completely changed larges sections of his original statement, largely because by then the police had used triagulation points from his mobile to trace his movements over that period. He told police he had been 'too tired' to remember the details correctly during his first interview on 14 May (!)

FOURTH, within 48 hours of Murat being declared an arguido, three of the 'Tapas 7' (Rachael Oldfield, Fiona Payne and Russell O'Brien) made statements to the police saying they thought they saw Robert Murat hanging around the Ocean Club during the late evening of 3 May.

FIFTH, the 'Tapas 3' did NOT at the 'confrontation' retract their assertion that they had seen Robert Murat on the evening of 3 May; on the contrary they resolutely maintained their belief throughout the confrontation. It was only months later, round about January and February, that press stories began to circulate about the 'Tapas 3' no longer being sure they had seen Murat that evening.

SIXTH, I do not think that Tanner retracted her identification of Murat until the 'rogatiries' in England of around April 2008, when she made the bizarre claim that she had mnever identified him in the first place.

SEVENTH, 'r s corbin' is right about the last part: "...[Tanner] later draws a e-fit of a man who looks nothing like him". This refers to her 'bundleman' artist's sketch, drawn by Melissa Little, and released by the McCann Team on 26 October 2007 - nearly six months after Madeleine had been reported missing. It was six months too late and, besdies that, he had no face.

EIGHTH, on 20 January 2008, the News of the World splashed the story of 'Monsterman'/'Cooperman', the sketch again being drawn by Melissa Little. It was claimed by Jane Tanner that 'Monsterman' looked '80%' like the artist's sketch of Jane Tanner's 'bundleman', a ridiculous claim as Tanner had earlier maintained that she had never seen the face of the man-carrying-a-child.

ARISING FROM THESE FACTS, I deduce the following:

1. Murat was up to no good between 1 and 3 May; possibly he had been flown in because something awful had already happened to Madeleine

2. The shady activity of MI5 and others in profiling Murat as the likely abductor PLUS Jane Tanner positively (but clearly wrongly) identifying him PLUS the 'Tapas 3' suddenly and conveniently 'remembering' that they had seen Murat outside the Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May lead me to think that the powers-that-be had agreed with Murat that Murat would be the 'patsy' ['r s corbin' is right about that but got the sequence of events muddled up]

TO THAT I add the facts that Brian Kennedy and his lawyer met with Murat and his lawyer and family on 13 May 2007 in Portugal and that four days after that the 'Tapas 7' and the McCanns and their various legal and other advisers congregated for a secret meeting at the Rithley Court Manor. I believe that Kennedy stitched up a deal with Murat at the 13 February meeting and that the McCann Team gave instructions at the Rothley Hotel meeting for the press to be gradually informed that they no longer viewed Murat as a suspect.

And indeed that is what happened, as I've charted in my article on Murat: 'From Arguido to Applause' on The Madeleine Foundation website, www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk

[IMPORTANT NOTE: Goncalo Amaral's book 'The Truth About A Lie' is the source for many of the above facts]

by **Tony Bennett** 20.07.11 23:32

pauline wrote:Exactly Stella!

In the old days you had to buy rolls of film. With digital cameras you can take unlimited shots. Only criteria is to have the battery charged.

As you say their friends must have taken lots of pics in which madeleine was included.

I think this is really significant and helps the theory that it was not Madeleine on that holiday...[SNIPPED]

I will agree with you pauline that the absence of undisputed photos of Madeleine on that holiday is a major puzzle, as is the fact that no DNA of Madeleine's could be found in the McCanns' flat.

However, we cannot put aside the evidence of springer spaniel Eddie, who alerted to the scent of a human corpse at:

* the living room of the flat
* the McCanns' bedroom
* the veranda
* the garden
* a red child's T-shirt
* two of Dr Kate McCann's clothes
* the wheel well of the hired car
* the key of the hired car
* Cuddle Cat.

By a simple process of reasoning, the corpse must be that of Madeleine McCann.

Rather, the absence of photos of Madeleine on holiday and the absence of her DNA might suggest she died very early on in the holiday.

I personally think that the videos of Madeleine and her parents on the airport bus and climbing on to the plane are indeed of Madeleine and are of that holiday.

Two separte videos of her, just at the airport!

So were no more videos taken of her that week??

by **tigger** 21.07.11 7:18

Tony Bennett wrote:
pauline wrote:Exactly Stella!

In the old days you had to buy rolls of film. With digital cameras you can take unlimited shots. Only criteria is to have the battery charged.

As you say their friends must have taken lots of pics in which madeleine was included.

I think this is really significant and helps the theory that it was not Madeleine on that holiday...[SNIPPED]
I will agree with you pauline that the absence of undisputed photos of Madeleine on that holiday is a major puzzle, as is the fact that no DNA of Madeleine's could be found in the McCanns' flat.

However, we cannot put aside the evidence of springer spaniel Eddie, who alerted to the scent of a human corpse at:

* the living room of the flat
* the McCanns' bedroom
* the veranda
* the garden
* a red child's T-shirt
* two of Dr Kate McCann's clothes
* the wheel well of the hired car
* the key of the hired car
* Cuddle Cat.

By a simple process of reasoning, the corpse must be that of Madeleine McCann.

Rather, the absence of photos of Madeleine on holiday and the absence of her DNA might suggest she died very early on in the holiday.

I personally think that the videos of Madeleine and her parents on the airport bus and climbing on to the plane are indeed of Madeleine and are of that holiday.

Two separte videos of her, just at the airport!

So were no more videos taken of her that week??

Another possibility is that she died during an earlier holiday there. The McC's were so insistent that they'd never been there, eager to point out they didn't know where the church was, that they never left the 'compound'. (they went to Chaplin's next to the church several times). I've been told that four flight tickets were issued to the McC's, not five. Don't know how to check that out.
It does allow for cadaver odour in the flat which may have been up to 6 months old. It also explains the extensive support in place, and of course the fully fledged plan.
Kate does say in her book that Gerry had been to Portugal several times for golfing weekends, the whole family on trips to Guernsey, Ireland and Spain! He certainly had connections there, including Murat I would think.
It also allows for a number of the T7 to be non complicit. I believe that Rachel M mentioned the resuscitation because they'd been told M had been overdosed. Doctors will close ranks, you don't need to be a freemason for that. Some of the T7 had never met the McC's before?
I know it's wild, so rap me over the knuckles. This lack of photographs is really weird.
The two airport videos don't prove that the girl was Madeleine.

by Gillyspot 21.07.11 8:18

some interesting points there Tigger. Surely well worth a look into. I don't know how to check out flights and how many were on them and doubt the police will bother.

by Zelina 21.07.11 9:36

tigger wrote:
This lack of photographs is really weird.
The two airport videos don't prove that the girl was Madeleine.

Indeed, and I've also wondered why we have not seen group photos of Madeleine with other kids at PdL.
Surely the police would have requested photos of Madeleine from other parents?

Is it possible that these photos do exist but weren't released to the public to protect the identity of the other children?
That doesn't really make sense because they could have blurred or blacked out their faces.

Madeleine may also have been in the background of other photos by accident. We all have strangers in the background of our holiday photos. And yet I don't remember seeing even one such photo.
You would think after she went missing everyone who was in PdL at that time would have checked their own photos.

There is definitely something suspicious there.

by **tigger** 21.07.11 17:02

Zelina wrote:
tigger wrote:
This lack of photographs is really weird.
The two airport videos don't prove that the girl was Madeleine.
Indeed, and I've also wondered why we have not seen group photos of Madeleine with other kids at PdL.
Surely the police would have requested photos of Madeleine from other parents?

Is it possible that these photos do exist but weren't released to the public to protect the identity of the other children?
That doesn't really make sense because they could have blurred or blacked out their faces.

Madeleine may also have been in the background of other photos by accident. We all have strangers in the background of our holiday photos. And yet I don't remember seeing even one such photo.
You would think after she went missing everyone who was in PdL at that time would have checked their own photos.

There is definitely something suspicious there.

Pool photo, 'last photo'. IMO clearly photoshopped. Didn't surface until Gerry had been back to Rothley. I think so they could paste Maddie into the genuinely taken photo at the pool. She looks much younger there than the tennis girl. Gerry slipped up I think, as another photo was published much later with only Maddie at the pool. Gerry's elbow and Sean's left leg disappeared from that photo leaving a good view of the rock wall behind her. Possible that the both photos were taken at the pool, except Maddie's on a previous holiday.
I keep saying, someone is quite good at photoshop, but look at the Everton shirt photo. Lots of slip ups. Head at impossible angle( v. visible if you blow it up) ghost line on left arm, blur on left elbow and blur on left part of face. Football shirt to remind the public of Soham?

by Miraflores 21.07.11 17:32

Well, I don't know whether the photos were photoshopped or not.

What does puzzle me is why they used an old photo on the posters when she was missing, and continue to do so now on the cover of the book. I say it's old judging by what Madeleine is wearing - it looks like a red velvet dress, so I imagine that it would be her Christmas party dress. So why use a photo from when she was 3 years and 8 months old, and not almost 4? Children can change quite a lot at that age in a short space of time.

Presumably this photo is used because it clearly shows Madeleine's eye (which they never made much of)?

by Gillyspot 21.07.11 17:35

I actually think it was when she was only 2 yrs 8 months I e not even the previous Christmas as she looks older than that in the Everton shirt. Certainly not a photo they should have used as they had new ones available from their holiday (as they say).

by Guest 21.07.11 17:53

You've got there first Honeybunch, I was about to say that the photo in the red dress looks as if it was taken at Christmas 2005. I think that the poolside photo could be genuine but taken the previous year. There have been a couple of reports that the McCanns had been to PDL before but this hasn't been confirmed. Even allowing for the changes as a child grows up, I'm not at all convinced that the girl at the tennis court is the same child as in these other two photos.

by Miraflores 21.07.11 18:41

Certainly not a photo they should have used as they had new ones available from their holiday (as they say).

Certainly not if they were seriously expecting someone to find her.... which of course, makes you think. Still, a 2 year old looks more 'cute' than a 4 year old, so a good marketing ploy.
MadeleineBook.com - Page 2 302873

by **PeterMac** 21.07.11 18:44

Tony Bennett wrote: So were no more videos taken of her that week??

Of course they were, but the video camera must have been stolen at the same time as ....
Oh, no, sorry. That's wrong.
I remember now.
One of the close family assured us that "Nothing of value was taken"

by Gillyspot 21.07.11 18:49

by **tigger** 21.07.11 19:40

PeterMac wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote: So were no more videos taken of her that week??
Of course they were, but the video camera must have been stolen at the same time as ....
Oh, no, sorry. That's wrong.
I remember now.
One of the close family assured us that "Nothing of value was taken"

Where can I find that? Never heard about anything being stolen. So video camera stolen and also Gerry's wallet. O yes, and one child. Nothing of value then. When and where was this camera stolen? Thanks.

by **tigger** 21.07.11 19:53

Marian wrote:You've got there first Honeybunch, I was about to say that the photo in the red dress looks as if it was taken at Christmas 2005. I think that the poolside photo could be genuine but taken the previous year. There have been a couple of reports that the McCanns had been to PDL before but this hasn't been confirmed. Even allowing for the changes as a child grows up, I'm not at all convinced that the girl at the tennis court is the same child as in these other two photos.

A lot of the photographs they've given us aren't all of the same girl. Thank you Marian! I said this before but no one believed me. I know about photoshopping, so am not making it up. Tennis girl is not shopped but too tall and very unlike M, she looks between 5 and 6. On the whole the colour pink is the only thing many have in common. The one with the frizzy hair is strange, she looks about 30! That was supposed to be taken in PdL.
There's quite a lot of make up - eyeliner mainly, blond eyebrows and black lashes? That would be rare, I'm seeing lipstick here and there too.
Some photos are pure paedo candy, think of the blue eyeshadow.
Initially Kate said she took the photo 'when Maddie had raided her make-up box'. So close! But no child can put make up on like that and blue eyeshadow is tarty and 20 years out of date.
In the book she's changed this to: a professional beautician who was visiting made Maddie up.

by Guest 21.07.11 20:02

tigger wrote:
Marian wrote:You've got there first Honeybunch, I was about to say that the photo in the red dress looks as if it was taken at Christmas 2005. I think that the poolside photo could be genuine but taken the previous year. There have been a couple of reports that the McCanns had been to PDL before but this hasn't been confirmed. Even allowing for the changes as a child grows up, I'm not at all convinced that the girl at the tennis court is the same child as in these other two photos.

A lot of the photographs they've given us aren't all of the same girl. Thank you Marian! I said this before but no one believed me. I know about photoshopping, so am not making it up. Tennis girl is not shopped but too tall and very unlike M, she looks between 5 and 6. On the whole the colour pink is the only thing many have in common. The one with the frizzy hair is strange, she looks about 30! That was supposed to be taken in PdL.
There's quite a lot of make up - eyeliner mainly, blond eyebrows and black lashes? That would be rare, I'm seeing lipstick here and there too.
Some photos are pure paedo candy, think of the blue eyeshadow.
Initially Kate said she took the photo 'when Maddie had raided her make-up box'. So close! But no child can put make up on like that and blue eyeshadow is tarty and 20 years out of date.
In the book she's changed this to: a professional beautician who was visiting made Maddie up.

Do you have the quote from the book on this at all tigger? I don't think I've heard of that before.

by Miraflores 21.07.11 20:33

In the book she's changed this to: a professional beautician who was visiting made Maddie up.

This is so weird! What parent pays for a professional beautician to make up a three year old - but is then too mean to provide a toothbrush each for the children.

by Guest 21.07.11 21:38

Tigger: there's been a lot of debate on the various photos under the topic "The last photo - the key questions", including whether or not they are of the same child. I think you'll find that very interesting.

MadeleineBook.com - Page 2 887656

by **tigger** 22.07.11 8:14

Marian wrote:Tigger: there's been a lot of debate on the various photos under the topic "The last photo - the key questions", including whether or not they are of the same child. I think you'll find that very interesting.

Thanks, I'll look that up. IMO the photos are going to be key evidence and I'm sure SY and PJ are already aware of these discrepancies.

by ROSA 26.07.11 22:56

ROSA wrote:http://madeleinebook.com/madeline-mccann-story/

by jd 26.07.11 23:13

ROSA wrote:
ROSA wrote:madeleinebook.com/madeline-mccann-story/

Think it has gone...can't access any of it

by Guest 26.07.11 23:14

Rosa, the answer appears to be yes. A message comes up that the page cannot be displayed.

by ROSA 26.07.11 23:15

by jd 26.07.11 23:30

The plot thickens....obviously something is going on somewhere

by jd 26.07.11 23:32

Marian wrote:Rosa, the answer appears to be yes. A message comes up that the page cannot be displayed.

'Can't find the server' which means the site has been taken down

They can put it back on later if they wanted to, but why has it been taken down in the first place is the question