Re: Playground Photo

by Angelique 07.11.11 16:34

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

I have read on another site something that has given me a new idea about "the playground picture". They recalled that the McCanns requested other holiday makers who were in Praia da Luz at the same time to send them their photographs to perhaps identify any strangers who may have been lurking around.

Since we suspect that some of the released photos have been photoshopped - could this explain that man standing in such an awkward position behind the playhouse. Is it possible that they inserted only half the body of this "stanger/man - (who it's possible I think is Raj Balu) this would explain the strange position of his leg. They could have obtain his image from someone else's holiday pictures.

Or alternatively they have used the background of someone else's photo and all the foreground children and Gerry have also been inserted as none of them seem to interact at all.

by **tigger** 07.11.11 17:27

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

I have read on another site something that has given me a new idea about "the playground picture". They recalled that the McCanns requested other holiday makers who were in Praia da Luz at the same time to send them their photographs to perhaps identify any strangers who may have been lurking around.

Since we suspect that some of the released photos have been photoshopped - could this explain that man standing in such an awkward position behind the playhouse. Is it possible that they inserted only half the body of this "stanger/man - (who it's possible I think is Raj Balu) this would explain the strange position of his leg. They could have obtain his image from someone else's holiday pictures.

Or alternatively they have used the background of someone else's photo and all the foreground children and Gerry have also been inserted as none of them seem to interact at all.

Pretty nearly everything is wrong with that photograph. I've just measured the girl in pink: on the screen, ankle to knee 2.0, knee to hip bone 2.0, hip bone to top of head, 3 cm. That is 7 roughly - all the measurements are in the same plane, so it's fairly accurate.
Now if I measure that against Gerry - and she cannot be more than about a foot away from him - her head will come up to the top of his shoulder just where the background begins. So that's one tall girl or the photoshops is lacking proportion.
The lack of interaction is very clear too, Gerry is looking at the ground, not at any of the children.

by Invinoveritas 07.11.11 18:21

The plastic play house? on the right has shadows indicating that the sun is shining from the top/top right as is also indicated from the ballerina's leg, Gerry and "Madeleine" and the guests on the left of the picture have the sun casting the shadows indicating a sun shining from the left to top left

by Guest 08.11.11 13:39

[quote="Marian"]I've just noticed something else in the photo. In some copies of it there's what looks like a young boy on the far left in front of a push chair. However when you enlarge the photo to 400% you'll see that it's an adult (not sure if male or female) carrying a small child. This version of the photo can be seen on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here's the larger version of this photo for any recent arrivals who may not have seen it. There is just something so unreal about it.

by **tigger** 08.11.11 13:55

[quote="Marian"]

Marian wrote:I've just noticed something else in the photo. In some copies of it there's what looks like a young boy on the far left in front of a push chair. However when you enlarge the photo to 400% you'll see that it's an adult (not sure if male or female) carrying a small child. This version of the photo can be seen on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here's the larger version of this photo for any recent arrivals who may not have seen it. There is just something so unreal about it.

Thanks to you high res. photo, it's easy to see it is a woman holding a ca. 1.5 to 2 yr. old boy in her arms. A three wheeled buggy is next to her. She is looking over at the photographer? I've pushed it up to ca. 400x.
Maddie isn't just out of proportion to Gerry, but she would tower over Sean, who is the bigger of the twins. If that is Ella sitting on the grass, her proportions dont' fit with the video from the bus either, where she was sitting next to Maddie.
In the far distance is the buggy the McCanns didn't have, I think.

by Guest 08.11.11 14:00

Jean wrote:Yes I imagine that I cannot enlarge the image sufficiently to see whoever was behind the house. It has been ascertained that the other child is the elder of the Payne daughters. She is also the one climbing the airport steps with Madeleine and the Paynes were the only Tapas 7 members who flew with the McCanns.

Tigger: I think the above information is definitely correct. The other child is not Jane Tanner's.

by jd 08.11.11 14:04

This photo always looked so very odd to me, its the positioning of them all which doesn't look right. But, this is a fact, this photo was retrieved from their camera in the PJ reports so if it has been tampered with... then it had to have been before the holiday and not during, one would assume

by **tigger** 08.11.11 14:16

jd wrote:This photo always looked so very odd to me, its the positioning of them all which doesn't look right. But, this is a fact, this photo was retrieved from their camera in the PJ reports so if it has been tampered with... then it had to have been before the holiday and not during, one would assume

O dear, that is a bit of a problem, because it is still a weird photo. On the other hand, there was one other photograph already photoshopped, on an USB stick, or might have been on the memory card. I can't see how you can get a photoshopped photograph back on the memory card? Although it is possible of course, seems a roundabout way to do it and it is going to be out of sequence. Why not have the other two : Maddie on the first poster (also about 2) and the iconic one on the memory card rather than on a USB stick. Although that was never recovered and ROB couldn't remember how he had the photographs printed on the 3rd.

by **tigger** 08.11.11 14:21

Marian wrote:
Jean wrote:Yes I imagine that I cannot enlarge the image sufficiently to see whoever was behind the house. It has been ascertained that the other child is the elder of the Payne daughters. She is also the one climbing the airport steps with Madeleine and the Paynes were the only Tapas 7 members who flew with the McCanns.

Tigger: I think the above information is definitely correct. The other child is not Jane Tanner's.

Thanks, my mistake. Point is, it's the same girl as on the video of presumably the same day. Isn't the Payne girl nearly the same age as Maddie?
I wasn't looking for anyone behind the house, we had an exchange on that and when you really enlarge it, you see a couple sitting probably on a veranda of the building behind the playhouse.

by jd 08.11.11 14:29

tigger wrote:
jd wrote:This photo always looked so very odd to me, its the positioning of them all which doesn't look right. But, this is a fact, this photo was retrieved from their camera in the PJ reports so if it has been tampered with... then it had to have been before the holiday and not during, one would assume

O dear, that is a bit of a problem, because it is still a weird photo. On the other hand, there was one other photograph already photoshopped, on an USB stick, or might have been on the memory card. I can't see how you can get a photoshopped photograph back on the memory card? Although it is possible of course, seems a roundabout way to do it and it is going to be out of sequence. Why not have the other two : Maddie on the first poster (also about 2) and the iconic one on the memory card rather than on a USB stick. Although that was never recovered and ROB couldn't remember how he had the photographs printed on the 3rd.

Its only a problem depending on what theory it alines to, or it fits perfectly. You can certainly put pictures back on a card using a mac by simply copying to the folder when the camera is plugged in like a hard drive, don't know about PC's. You do have to ask why did they bring a memory stick with old photos of Maddie on a holiday to the algarve? When you are packing why are they thinking of bringing this item?

The photos were printed by an OC employee on the 3rd...I think, by the receptionist or someone. There is a police statement from her about this and if I remember rightly, they used a Kodak printer (there is a model number). But the printer was never found because the receptionist (or, who ever it was) told the police that her boyfriend had taken it with him to France! Beggars belief!

by **tigger** 08.11.11 14:50

jd wrote: quote The photos were printed by an OC employee on the 3rd...I think, by the receptionist or someone. There is a police statement from her about this and if I remember rightly, they used a Kodak printer (there is a model number). But the printer was never found because the receptionist (or, who ever it was) told the police that her boyfriend had taken it with him to France! Beggars belief! unquote

However, there were between 30 to 40 copies printed on quality photographic paper of a brand which was not available in any shop in PdL (PJ)
The other poster, with the handwritten message on it, was simply photocopied by OC I think. THE photograph however, apart from the photoshopping, the age of the child and the admitted fact it was on a USB stick (there were no laptops taken on holiday as far as I could find out - too forensically sensitive I expect) is highly unlikely to have been printed that evening. I believe the printer was reported stolen later, either in France or Switserland. How unlucky can you get?
I believe it is their major mistake, because there is simply no way round it, lost printers or no. Even if one admits there is was a printer, does anyone go on holiday with a stack of A4 photopaper?

by jd 08.11.11 14:57

I'd never thought about the quality of the printed poster and assumed it was on ordinary A4. But if it was printed on quality photographic paper then this raises a few eyebrows, and even more so printed on a brand not available in PDL. Has this been said somewhere about the printed photographic paper? could be significant, as this points strongly that they had to have been printed before the holiday, unless the OC employee had this brand of paper in her printer that travelled to France and got abducted

by Guest 08.11.11 15:12

Here is the report from the files [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Note! 4 photos on Kodak paper was given to the PJ.

ETA

Further down that link it mentions multiple copies made on a HP colour laserjet. ( a colour photocopier type machine)

by **tigger** 08.11.11 15:46

Stella wrote:Here is the report from the files [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Note! 4 photos on Kodak paper was given to the PJ.

ETA

Further down that link it mentions multiple copies made on a HP colour laserjet. ( a colour photocopier type machine)

Processos, Volume 12, Page 231

Snippet From the Statement by Nelson Filipe Pacheco de Costa about the events of the night of 3rd May.

GNR Officer

One of the group contacted Sky News and the Embassy that night. He does not know if the parents made the call.

Upon leaving the apartment he saw various photographs of the little girl printed on normal A4 paper which had been printed at the reception as well as other photos printed on 10 x 15 photographic poster paper which could not have printed at the reception. This seemed unusual to him and he later confirmed that they could not have been printed at the reception.

It's quite a long time ago, but I read the interview with ROB who appears to have been in charge of the printing. He also mentions the USB as given to him by Gerry. As usual it's not very clear, but he is the one mentioning the number of copies printed off as between 30 and 40, from what I recall. I'll have a look at the PJ files.

by jd 08.11.11 15:57

This is really interesting...Hadn't read these particular statements before

"In these photographs is the image of a minor, in all ways identical to the child of British nationality referenced above, in two distinct poses (two by two). As mentioned previously, these were in the possession of the childs family, which from the beginning, even though there may be an explanation, appeared unusual, as on that night there was no possibility of proceeding with a revelation of the type of paper and the format used.'

If Ive read the statements correctly, the PJ are saying (a) that the type of paper the posters were printed on the night of May 3rd was impossible to have been done, and (b) There are no shops in PDL that sells this type of paper (c) Ocean Club did not have this type of paper either, and from Ocean Club there were photocopies made or printed using normal A4 paper taken from a given high formatted printed poster, or memory stick (d) there has never been an explanation to the PJ as to how the mccanns had these high formatted printed posters

In which case, how did they have these high quality printed posters on them on May 3rd? They had only discovered Maddie had gone an hour or two beforehand

If the PJ cannot find this type of paper days and weeks after the event in their own time, how could the mccanns do it in under 2 hours, especially while under stress and panic!

by Guest 08.11.11 16:19

tigger wrote:jd wrote: quote The photos were printed by an OC employee on the 3rd...I think, by the receptionist or someone. There is a police statement from her about this and if I remember rightly, they used a Kodak printer (there is a model number). But the printer was never found because the receptionist (or, who ever it was) told the police that her boyfriend had taken it with him to France! Beggars belief! unquote

However, there were between 30 to 40 copies printed on quality photographic paper of a brand which was not available in any shop in PdL (PJ)
The other poster, with the handwritten message on it, was simply photocopied by OC I think. THE photograph however, apart from the photoshopping, the age of the child and the admitted fact it was on a USB stick (there were no laptops taken on holiday as far as I could find out - too forensically sensitive I expect) is highly unlikely to have been printed that evening. I believe the printer was reported stolen later, either in France or Switserland. How unlucky can you get?
I believe it is their major mistake, because there is simply no way round it, lost printers or no. Even if one admits there is was a printer, does anyone go on holiday with a stack of A4 photopaper?

I suppose if you were taking your printer on holidays you might think of bringing the photopaper (it is expensive & hard to find) but having a hard time with why anyone might take their printer on a tour of Europe, it must have been some printer. Especially when they reported it missing. It's a funny story. I can actually understand the USB stick, it's small & might have been in the luggage. What I have a very hard time understanding however is how a group of 9 people spent their time trawling through memory stick photos, printing out posters and writing tapas check timelines, phoning UK begging for help while the rest of the community were actually out there looking for missing Madeleine.

by jd 08.11.11 17:08

Does anyone know if the poolside photo was in the PJ report of photo's retrieved from their cameras? It must be there somewhere but I cannot find it

by **tigger** 08.11.11 17:33

jd wrote:Does anyone know if the poolside photo was in the PJ report of photo's retrieved from their cameras? It must be there somewhere but I cannot find it

The poolside photo only surfaced after Gerry had been back to the UK, end of May I think. Therefore it is unlikely to be on the camera. Not very clever is it? But then, it looks to me, they were Doctors, they were British, they had clout and media. The PJ wasn't expected to be thorough and imo their attitude to Amaral throughout has been one of revenge.

Kate and someone called Wolf-something from OC went through all the photographs on her camera. Allegedly. I think it's in the book. I now wonder. Because e.g. the photo of the girl with the sunglasses on her head isn't Maddie, but could well be the Payne girl as apparently they were quite alike.
That one is in the bl/w photos of the PJ files I think.
Would be good to know the sequence of deletion / selection/ retrieval(PJ). Also if the tennis girl was the last photo on the memory card.

by jd 08.11.11 18:11

They started on the police from the first minutes to their F and F's...pre planned from the outset I think to deflect any future suspicion away from them

I think it is really important to establish if that poolside pic was ever taken from the camera with the holiday snaps given to the PJ. Because if they are not on it then it all but proves it was sitting on their computer back in the UK and why gerry had to go and get it. And why Murat said 'this is the biggest c**kup in history'. Part of him saying this is gerry leaving the poolside pic at home and not putting it on the camera

This is a big piece of the jigsaw which is glaringly obvious if true but why didn't the PJ follow this up? It must have been on that camera somewhere. We need to prove or dispel the poolside photo being on that camera or not somehow

by jd 15.05.12 0:14

This from Amarals book 'Truth of the Lie - Chapter 5...which I think is referring to this photo

"On the morning of May 4th, Murat is seen near some GNR members in the company of two individuals of English nationality - as we find out later -, one of them being of Asian origin. Ocean Club tourists probably. We also examine the photos taken by the McCanns during their holiday. In one of them, Gerald McCann is seen playing with his children in the Tapas restaurant play area. In the background, you can make out an Asian-looking man, the same one as was seen in Robert Murat's company. He seems to be observing the family. We then proceed to identify him and the other holiday-makers that Murat had been in contact with. We get this information to the English police, who interview them locally. They conclude that they weren't involved in Madeleine's disappearance. In fact, the man in the photo was with his daughter - and there was nothing suspicious about his behaviour; as for the others, they had met Murat during the searches organised to find Madeleine. A few days later, these photos will be published in an English newspaper: it is not known how they were obtained or for what purpose they were disclosed."

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

by russiandoll 15.05.12 18:32

Maddie appears to have her trainers on the wrong feet, the right foot looks to be in a left shoe.

by **tigger** 15.05.12 18:49

russiandoll wrote: Maddie appears to have her trainers on the wrong feet, the right foot looks to be in a left shoe.

Yes, others have noticed that too and it does look that if she straightens up, she'd be definitely higher than Gerry's waist.
it's a very weird picture, seeing the tiny people through the hole in the play thing. None of the proportions seem to work.
It's a useless picture to publish, unless you want to show what a hands-on Daddy Gerry is.
I've just looked - it doesn't work - if you measure the length of her body she would come to Gerry's shoulder. There is also no relationship between what she is doing and what Gerry is watching.

by bobbin 15.05.12 19:34

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

I have never been able to reconcile the angles of the shadows. Where is the sun?
How do the walkers to the top left have long shadows of legs but no bodies, people walking together yet their shadows are at different angles.
How does Gerry have one long leg shadow, Maddie a folded area, but Paynes daughter and Sean nothing?
Where is the long shadow for the 'Asian' man?
Is the tree on the right casting a light shadow on the wall? If so, why is it lighter and at that angle.

For me too, if Maddie stood up I think she would be considerably taller than Payne's daughter, yet on the aircraft steps, Maddie was at most one head above her friend.

by The Snapper 06.01.14 12:06

I'm resuscitating this old thread to concentrate on the playground pic so that PeterMac can have his Holiday Weather thread back. It's also interesting to see what posters were saying about it in the past

I showed the photo to a colleague this morning, who immediately noticed something that's never been mentioned to my knowledge - that the front half sole of Maddie's left shoe disappears into the ground

In summary, what we have so far is:
Maddie has part of her left shoe missing
Maddie has no head and hair shadow to correspond with her body shadow (it would be in front of her feet)
The shadows of the trees and playhouse indicate a sun over our right shoulder (about 4pm) but the people shadows come from a sun over our left shoulder (about 7.30pm)
Bald guy has no shadow
Brown haired girl's shadow direction is the same as the trees not the other people
Bystander on left (not in the cropped version above) is shielding his/her eyes against a sun that is behind him/her according to his/her shadow
Something weird about the straightness of the palm tree trunk edge above bald guy's head
Not convinced about the dark left hand half of the top of the tree trunk
Unexplained horizontal line on the grass to the right of the playhouse
The people shadows are impossible anyway because it indicates a time of 7.30pm (sun due west) so the shadows would be much longer, less light in the sky and kids would be in bed

I am going to show this to a pro photographer today and see what he thinks

I enjoy the discussion on here but a photo like this is very tangible

by tiny 06.01.14 12:21

tigger wrote:
russiandoll wrote: Maddie appears to have her trainers on the wrong feet, the right foot looks to be in a left shoe.

Yes, others have noticed that too and it does look that if she straightens up, she'd be definitely higher than Gerry's waist.
it's a very weird picture, seeing the tiny people through the hole in the play thing. None of the proportions seem to work.
It's a useless picture to publish, unless you want to show what a hands-on Daddy Gerry is.
I've just looked - it doesn't work - if you measure the length of her body she would come to Gerry's shoulder. There is also no relationship between what she is doing and what Gerry is watching.

It looks like Gerry is looking at sean and not Madeleine,also if Madeleine was jumping could that be why her left shoe looks like it missing or may be the grass is a little longer .

Log in for more topics