. Re: Who took the tennis court photo?

by Monty Heck 09.09.12 11:28

Swearing in front of small children apart, GM's comment about not being their to enjoy himself needs to be taken with a massive pinch of salt. A lot of Scots humour is deadpan, ironic, even sardonic and I've heard people use this phrase countless times where the situation is (obviously to other Scots who get the joke) so opposite to the phrase he's using. The McCs may have made lots of eyebrow raising statments but this one has absolutely been taken out of context. What's really interesting is who uploaded the clip and why.

by Guest 09.09.12 11:44

Here is a link to the video which explains when and by whom it was released.

I looked at this link recently and it then included the whole of the original mobile phone footage (including Gerry's infamous comment and the embarrassed atmosphere after) but now it's been shortened to allow for some news footage. Odd.

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

by Monty Heck 09.09.12 11:58

Thanks Jean, hadn't seen that before. Still bit strange that would have been posted by a supporter, unless it was someone so familiar with that brand of humour it wouldn't have occurred it could have been taken so much out of context but it sholuld have been obvious the swearing was not in good taste.

by Ross 09.09.12 12:22

Jean wrote:Here is a link to the video which explains when and by whom it was released.

I looked at this link recently and it then included the whole of the original mobile phone footage (including Gerry's infamous comment and the embarrassed atmosphere after) but now it's been shortened to allow for some news footage. Odd.

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

I hadn't seen that BBC page either, and the first thing that is obvious is that it is a scripted PR release. The style, the whole tone of it tells us it's not a news story as such, it is the public impression the 'campaign' wants to project. So the fact that it tells us that the footage was shot on an airport bus in the Algarve tells us that is what they want us to think, it does not necessarily mean it is true.

by **tigger** 10.09.12 14:10

russiandoll wrote:can anyone help me here....I cannot accept that this is an entire authentic photo, as the head, even allowing for the child dropping her chin forward to secure the tennis balls, is in a truly weird position in the way it sits on the shoulders. Am I just looking at this wrong or is the head Maddie and the body that of another child?
Those clothes are so old fashioned, I wonder if the body is maybe Kate as a 70s child , no way can I believe those clothes are what Maddie would have been dressed in.

@ RD
I'm working on this photo now and getting some interesting results. On this screenshot I can quite clearly see the 'ghost' of a tennisball which overlaps her left cheek a little. There's a remnant of yellow pixels which haven't been deleted.
The head is slightly too large for the body and too far forward. Anatomically impossible as I can locate the crucial 7th vertebra. But I thought I'd start with the tennisball.
It can also be clearly seen that the brown/dark line between her neck and the T shirt isn't her hair. It must be a filler for joining the head to the body.

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

by Ribisl 10.09.12 21:57

tigger wrote:
russiandoll wrote:can anyone help me here....I cannot accept that this is an entire authentic photo, as the head, even allowing for the child dropping her chin forward to secure the tennis balls, is in a truly weird position in the way it sits on the shoulders. Am I just looking at this wrong or is the head Maddie and the body that of another child?
Those clothes are so old fashioned, I wonder if the body is maybe Kate as a 70s child , no way can I believe those clothes are what Maddie would have been dressed in.

@ RD
I'm working on this photo now and getting some interesting results. On this screenshot I can quite clearly see the 'ghost' of a tennisball which overlaps her left cheek a little. There's a remnant of yellow pixels which haven't been deleted.
The head is slightly too large for the body and too far forward. Anatomically impossible as I can locate the crucial 7th vertebra. But I thought I'd start with the tennisball.
It can also be clearly seen that the brown/dark line between her neck and the T shirt isn't her hair. It must be a filler for joining the head to the body.

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

My view has always been that this photo had been clearly and poorly doctored. The body is too grown up for a three year old. The upper body is really quite thick and the legs and hands are too well developed. The head is out of place and at a wrong angle, and the joint quite visible to the naked eye. You mention the size of the head being too big but perhaps they did that so it wouldn't look like an older girt. Also the outfit is not what Kate would buy for her children either imo though I may be wrong.

Now I don't know what to make of the yellow shadow you have spotted on Madeleine's left cheek, but these balls have the brand name stamped in red. I can't remember when I last saw yellow balls with red writing on them but they are obviously some cheaper training balls. It's difficult to make out the brand name and I don't immediately recognise the shape of the writing either, but I am wondering it may just be possible not only to date the photo by them but also to reduce the geographical region where such balls were sold.

by jd 22.09.12 14:29

The last credible sighting of Maddie imo was by Georgina Jackson (Tennis coach)

"She relates it was one of the preferred activities of the McCann couple in that they had several lessons throughout the days and up to the date of the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, it being that the child also had a class, on Tuesday, 1 May (10-11h00), that class [in which] she was among a group of children was conducted by the deponent. "

Could Georgina have mistaken Maddie for Ella? The likeness is quite remarkable
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

On this Tuesday, Ella was not signed out of morning creche and also written down as Emma before being changed to Ella (you'd have thought Cat Baker know her name by then). Maddie was then not signed out in the afternoon creche. These were the only 2 kids where there was not a signing out. Between the 2 kids, only one was effectively signed in and out of a creche session

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

by Guest 22.09.12 14:41

jd wrote:[...]
Could Georgina have mistaken Maddie for Ella? The likeness is quite remarkable
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
[...]

***
To the best of my knowledge this isn't Tanners daughter, but Payne's oldest daughter Lily.

by jd 22.09.12 14:45

If it is david paynes daughter....didn't they say she never went to creche? They look the same age (same child). Even more interesting

by Hummingbird 22.09.12 15:57

I have never ever seen this picture before - where does it come from?

Can it be 100% identified as Ella or Lily? Once that happens then the creche records and timings - trips to beach etc etc can be looked at very closely and compared.

This picture is gobsmakingly similar, I have to say it has taken my breath away, I can't stop looking at it from every angle - even the teeth are the same!!

It takes me back to my theory of IVF and who belongs to who - if you get my drift - or twins - it is spooky and too similar for comfort.

Can we get any more?

It kinda makes me realise why some people have been shouting 'sub' for so long now!

by Hummingbird 22.09.12 15:59

Sorry meant to also say - can some really clever person put these two pictures over each other i.e. turn the one of Ella or Lily around and place over MM face? Hope you get my drift!!!

by jd 22.09.12 16:30

Hummingbird wrote:I have never ever seen this picture before - where does it come from?

Can it be 100% identified as Ella or Lily? Once that happens then the creche records and timings - trips to beach etc etc can be looked at very closely and compared.

This picture is gobsmakingly similar, I have to say it has taken my breath away, I can't stop looking at it from every angle - even the teeth are the same!!

It takes me back to my theory of IVF and who belongs to who - if you get my drift - or twins - it is spooky and too similar for comfort.

Can we get any more?

It kinda makes me realise why some people have been shouting 'sub' for so long now!

The picture on the left comes from the payne/tanner cameras in the PJ files. I would say that it is definately Ella

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

by jd 22.09.12 16:45

With the sunglasses on....
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 22.09.12 17:50

IMO the only thing they have in common is the very unnatural smile [say cheese!] for 3-year-old girls ...

by jd 22.09.12 17:54

And cheekbones, teeth, chin, nose....apart from this they look totally different!

by sami 22.09.12 18:10

These pictures are a very good illustration as to why we can not be certain there are any correct independent sightings of Madeleine. Many witnesses were not necessarily lying, but this shows just how similar blond, pink and sparkly four year old girls can be at first glance.

When you look closely at the pictures you start to notice how wide Madeleines kneck is in comparison to her friends etc., but at first glance it is remarkable. Just because a three/four year old blond girl was holding Kate Healys hand or in her company, does not make her the childs mother. People will assume this is the case, they will not study the child in any great detail - why would they - Healy and McCann were supposed to have twins and an older blond girl. If what they saw fit that picture, why would any question it.

One "sighting" that has always stood out in my mind is the one where the receptionist remembers Madeleine in the company of a tall man who was complaining. I have said before, one way to have yourself noticed is to be an awkward customer or make a big deal and complain about something. So the man was indeed noticed and remembered by the witness and in the company of Madeleine. Looking at these photos, it could have been either girl.

So we end up back at the same question - who, outside of the Tapas group, really saw Madeleine during that holiday.

by jd 22.09.12 18:17

These pictures are a very good illustration as to why we can not be certain there are any correct independent sightings of Madeleine. Many witnesses were not necessarily lying, but this shows just how similar blond, pink and sparkly four year old girls can be at first glance

Thank you, this is what I was trying to point out

The receptionist who said she saw Madeleine with the tall man who was booking the tapas for the week could well have been ROB with Ella. If this was Sunday Ella would not have been at creche anyway

by Guest 22.09.12 19:52

jd wrote:
These pictures are a very good illustration as to why we can not be certain there are any correct independent sightings of Madeleine. Many witnesses were not necessarily lying, but this shows just how similar blond, pink and sparkly four year old girls can be at first glance

Thank you, this is what I was trying to point out

The receptionist who said she saw Madeleine with the tall man who was booking the tapas for the week could well have been ROB with Ella. If this was Sunday Ella would not have been at creche anyway

***
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're still mixing up Ella & Lily ...

by Ribisl 22.09.12 20:40

Hummingbird wrote:
This picture is gobsmakingly similar, I have to say it has taken my breath away, I can't stop looking at it from every angle - even the teeth are the same!!

I see two totally different and distinguishable children in these two pictures. In fact I cannot see a single facial feature that they share in common. However I fully agree some of the witnesses not well acquainted with either of them could easily have mistaken one for the other.

by jd 22.09.12 21:03

Châtelaine wrote:
jd wrote:
These pictures are a very good illustration as to why we can not be certain there are any correct independent sightings of Madeleine. Many witnesses were not necessarily lying, but this shows just how similar blond, pink and sparkly four year old girls can be at first glance

Thank you, this is what I was trying to point out

The receptionist who said she saw Madeleine with the tall man who was booking the tapas for the week could well have been ROB with Ella. If this was Sunday Ella would not have been at creche anyway
***
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're still mixing up Ella & Lily ...

Show me that I am and I will gladly accept it. I only want to know who is who, and from the PJ files david payne is cuddling 2 children which I think are his, and the one below jane tanners picture which is of a 3 year old girl I think is Ella...this makes sense all round

The girl in the picture is not the same one as in the airport bus either and this was paynes daughter, she is in the playground photo

by Guest 22.09.12 22:31

JD, the 1st, 2nd & 3rd photos with David Payne: they both cannot be his daughters as they were then somewhere around 3 years and 1 year old. The one with the striped top is his daughter and the 1 year old is in the last 3 photos.

By a process of elimination the other girl he is holding must be Jane Tanner's daughter and I agree that she is also the child in sunglasses.

by jd 22.09.12 23:30

I think it is definately Ella. david payne says in his RI in April 2008 "Okay, ~~err~~ as I say we have two children, ~~err~~ Lily and Scarlet, ~~err~~ Lily will be ~~err~~ four in August, Scarlet's nearly two"....So back in May 2007 Scarlet would be about 1 years old, Lily about 2 1/2 years old. The girl in the photo looks about 3 going on 4 to me and we know Ella was only just a few weeks younger than Maddie

These are the photos from the airport bus which we know is paynes daughter
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Ribisl 23.09.12 9:37

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

This too is Lily in the foreground.

by Snifferdog 23.09.12 10:53

jd wrote:The last credible sighting of Maddie imo was by Georgina Jackson (Tennis coach)

"She relates it was one of the preferred activities of the McCann couple in that they had several lessons throughout the days and up to the date of the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, it being that the child also had a class, on Tuesday, 1 May (10-11h00), that class [in which] she was among a group of children was conducted by the deponent. "

Could Georgina have mistaken Maddie for Ella? The likeness is quite remarkable
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

On this Tuesday, Ella was not signed out of morning creche and also written down as Emma before being changed to Ella (you'd have thought Cat Baker know her name by then). Maddie was then not signed out in the afternoon creche. These were the only 2 kids where there was not a signing out. Between the 2 kids, only one was effectively signed in and out of a creche session

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

They look to me like two peas in a pod. The placement of features in a face is extremely important in capturing a likeness in portraiture. I agree with Jd in that their respective teeth, chins, cheeks, lips are the same. The neck looks unnaturally thin on the left photo because her untrimmed hair is longer and is balling up inbetween her shoulders and neck. The side parting in the B & W photo changes the look somewhat compared to the colour one as does the angle of her chin lifted slightly higher. Although we see a right ear on one photo and a left ear on the other they look as though they belong on the same head. IMO these two children depicted here are one and the same. Even photos of my own children do not look as alike as the above do even though they all share the same mum and dad!

by Hummingbird 23.09.12 11:52

Snifferdog wrote:
jd wrote:The last credible sighting of Maddie imo was by Georgina Jackson (Tennis coach)

"She relates it was one of the preferred activities of the McCann couple in that they had several lessons throughout the days and up to the date of the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, it being that the child also had a class, on Tuesday, 1 May (10-11h00), that class [in which] she was among a group of children was conducted by the deponent. "

Could Georgina have mistaken Maddie for Ella? The likeness is quite remarkable
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

On this Tuesday, Ella was not signed out of morning creche and also written down as Emma before being changed to Ella (you'd have thought Cat Baker know her name by then). Maddie was then not signed out in the afternoon creche. These were the only 2 kids where there was not a signing out. Between the 2 kids, only one was effectively signed in and out of a creche session

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
They look to me like two peas in a pod. The placement of features in a face is extremely important in capturing a likeness in portraiture. I agree with Jd in that their respective teeth, chins, cheeks, lips are the same. The neck looks unnaturally thin on the left photo because her untrimmed hair is longer and is balling up inbetween her shoulders and neck. The side parting in the B & W photo changes the look somewhat compared to the colour one as does the angle of her chin lifted slightly higher. Although we see a right ear on one photo and a left ear on the other they look as though they belong on the same head. IMO these two children depicted here are one and the same. Even photos of my own children do not look as alike as the above do even though they all share the same mum and dad!

Twins anybody?

I have often wondered if MM was a twin and that the reason her birth cert etc was never allowed to be seen was because it would show/prove this ie dates are altered etc so the birth dates are not the same as the other twin on record therefore no one would ever question it - 'ooh what a coincidence, both you and your friends daughters look so alike and fancy them being born on the same day!!'. Of course if the birth dates are told to be different who questions it, it is what you are told so you have no reason to disbelieve it.
Do we have any pictures of KM whilst pregnant? Do we have any proof that KM was pregnant through IVF treatment or is it just what we are told? Is it possible that MM was a twin carried by another person. I have always been very doubtful of the IVF story and the DNA (or lack of it). Is it possible KM & GM used a surrogate (friend) to carry their child! Shoot me down if you like but this is just a thought that I have often wondered about and I really do think the Drs and the IVF is a big link here - and I also believe that certain members of this group are far more into each other. Also, if this is the case it would make a number of friends have to go along with whatever story is given otherwise their little surrogate/IVF scam is soon out of the bag!
You do not keep back vital evidence like medical records, birth certs, credit card details unless they show something you don't want the world to see!
The likeness of these two pictures is probably the most telling I have seen so far and we really need to establish whose child it is supposed to be.
jd - once we can do that then we can take a very good look at the creche records again and try to tally upthe times this girl and MM were at creche together, because if this is the child that jean thinks it may be then it seems that she was apparently NEVER booked into creche - or was she as someone else???