Re: Playground Photo

by jeanmonroe 06.01.14 12:24

Where is the 'shadow' of the little child , sitting down, in the stripey top?

by **PeterMac** 06.01.14 12:26

Madeleine's left leg has no shadow at all.
Unless you count the one going at right angles to the one Gerry is casting.
The more you look at this one, the more weird it becomes.

by Guest 06.01.14 12:27

Right in front of her, I think JM. There is a tiny portion on the left of her.

I can't see anything strange about Madeleine's shoes, by the way.

by bobbin 06.01.14 12:28

bobbin wrote:[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.

It gets even worse, the closer you look.
Maddie's right knee and jacket adjoining trousers.
Their is fuzzy blurring on her right knee trouser leg, whereas on the left leg the edge line is defined.
The shadows seem slightly more red on her right leg, than those on her left trouser leg.
The way the jacket overhangs the right leg, is 'indecipherable' in terms of folds and fall line of the material.
I also feel that the legs, if straightened up would make this a tall child, much taller than the little girl sitting down and yet these two on the airport steps were not of such a great difference in height.

by jeanmonroe 06.01.14 13:03

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Right in front of her, I think JM. There is a tiny portion on the left of her.

I can't see anything strange about Madeleine's shoes, by the way.

But the shadows are cast to the right on the other 'subjects'.

There 'should' be a 'shadow' cast to the right of the sitting child on the grass.

by Rasputin 06.01.14 13:56

One reason Maddie's trainer appears to be sinking into the ground maybe the type of grass , it may be ' gramma ' which is like a vine which grows across the top of the ground and feels spongey underfoot ...

by Five Star 06.01.14 14:15

I'm not sure how to search this thread for "purple top"

Sorry if it's been mentioned already, I don't have the time to read it all....

by The Snapper 06.01.14 14:51

jeanmonroe wrote:Where is the 'shadow' of the little child , sitting down, in the stripey top?

As NFWTD said jean, it's in front of her to the left, which is consistent with the mid-afternoon shadows of the trees and playhouse. My hypothesis is that the shadows of all the other people were positioned to make it look later in the day, about 6pm. Reason? Who knows? But that's what it looks like. Incidentally, as I said earlier, the shadows of the people don't indicate 6pm as may have been intended, it's more like 7.30pm and that's impossible for reasons given in my previous post.

by Five Star 06.01.14 15:35

Should Madeleine's pinky finger be on Gerry's side or the picture takers side?

Im trying to use the man with sunglasses & Gerry's hands to figure it out, ....but it gets confusing!!

by Guest 06.01.14 15:58

I have been searching for when this photo was released, and found the -snipped- article below. For the full discussion click the link.

Hope this hasn't been posted before, and am grateful to The Snapper for finding and bumping the old thread on this.

Why was it done, there must have been a reason. I'm sure I read the parents released it. Was it used (and made) to show MBM being there on the specific time and date the Mccs

alleged ? If that was the reason surely a more convincing photo(shopped) picture could have been produced, especially with all the backers and supporters they seem to have had on

call,? apologies, just my rambling thoughts.

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

CONCLUSION
The playground photo was released on or about Saturday May 26. An article appeared on the Sky News website on May 27 (see below). It says that the photo was taken on May 2. More concerning is that the article says that it shows Madeleine and her younger twins Sean and Amelie playing with their father Gerry. As we have shown here quite conclusively, this is not Amelie McCann sitting on the grass. Why then did Sky get this story so blatantly wrong?

It is easy to take those words for granted and not sit and stare at a photo to see if the caption matches the picture. In this case someone has made a big mistake. Not only has the public been fooled by this picture, but in the context of the other discrepancies, what possible reason did the McCanns have to want to deceive with this picture? A mistake is easily rectified and Sky could have fixed the error by now. Our conclusion is that some or all the photos taken at Praia da Luz in the week prior to May 3 were engineered and released for a reason yet to be discovered.

by Guest 06.01.14 16:14

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

Our conclusion is that some or all the photos taken at Praia da Luz in the week prior to May 3 were engineered and released for a reason yet to be discovered.

The only reason I can really offer is that there are a vanishingly small number of photos of the "real" MBM in existence, and, it would seem, none of her in PdL that week.

The only other reason I can think of is some kind of warning to one of the people pictured - that can only be the bald guy. In many ways in fact he is the subject of the picture. I want to say that he is Raj Balu, I know he has been positively identified but I can't remember if it definitely was him.

by Guest 06.01.14 16:26

Another aspect of the photo which is questionable is that the fact that neither girls' faces are visible.

by Guest 06.01.14 16:31

@ CR, I believe your thinking is correct, that it is Raj Balu, can't really rely on my memory nowadays but pretty sure I read that somewhere.

He is also mentioned in GA's book, as is this photo, and he was traced, interviewed and deleted from the enquiry - again IIRC.

I still cannot comprehend why they released such an obviously poor quality photo.

by The Snapper 06.01.14 16:43

daffodil wrote:The playground photo was released on or about Saturday May 26. An article appeared on the Sky News website on May 27 (see below). It says that the photo was taken on May 2.

and it appears to have been set up to indicate that the pictured scene took place at 6pm (but it has been done so badly it doesn't actually indicate any particular time)
is there anything significant about 6pm on May 2?

by Guest 06.01.14 16:52

The Snapper wrote:
daffodil wrote:The playground photo was released on or about Saturday May 26. An article appeared on the Sky News website on May 27 (see below). It says that the photo was taken on May 2.
and it appears to have been set up to indicate that the pictured scene took place at 6pm (but it has been done so badly it doesn't actually indicate any particular time)
is there anything significant about 6pm on May 2?

An alibi ???

by Guest 06.01.14 16:55

That M. was still alive on that date?

by Guest 06.01.14 17:01

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

The children's clothes (particularly Sean's) appear to be the same as in the video footage from 28th April. Maybe that was when the playground photo was taken too.

by Guest 06.01.14 17:04

Am I correct that there was no independent sighting of her (a completely reliable one I mean) on the 3rd ??

by ultimaThule 06.01.14 17:07

Ladyinred wrote:That M. was still alive on that date?

I agree and it seems to me that all/any purported photos of Madeleine McCann which are claimed to have been taken during week commencing 28 April 2007 share the same purpose.

by ultimaThule 06.01.14 17:09

daffodil wrote:Am I correct that there was no independent sighting of her (a completely reliable one I mean) on the 3rd ??

To the best of my knowledge, it seems that Dr Amaral relied on a statement by one of the bar staff to the effect that Madeleine was seen alive at the 'high tea' c5.30pm on 3 May 2007.

by Doug D 06.01.14 17:12

Snapper,

I've posted this earlier on the 'Holiday Weather' stream but it probably makes more sense here.

Daffodil (5/1/14, 2.36), I have to agree with Clay, no end of useful snippets & links.

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

Mr Red & Mrs Black in the playground photo:

Boyd family, Vicky, Jason, Freddie (10mths), Louie (3) (& ? Grandma ? person hidden behind Vicky in playground photo casting a shadow?) from Barnstable, Devon

Interview in ‘First Magazine’ with Mrs Boyd

“Day before Madeleine disappeared” - so we’re talking Wednesday 2nd

“Vicky……was sitting by the pool as Maddies mum Kate relaxed on a sunlounger and watched her daughter whizzing down the waterslide. Maddie was wearing a sunhat, a little pink top and blue skirt,……….”

‘Waterslide’? Don’t think there was one, but there does appear to be a yellow slide behind the playhouse. Also not the clothes to wear if playing in water.
‘Sunhat, little pink top & blue skirt’ – so not the clothes in this photo (or the right girl?)

“Maddie went from the poolside to a play area to have a game of football with Louie…………..she & Louie were kicking a football around in the play area for about an hour………."

Why, if slide was not in the poolside but in the play area??

"I spoke to Maddies mum briefly. She told me this was their first holiday abroad with the kids……….”

Really!

“Maddies dad…..was playing tennis on a nearby court at the time and after the match he joined Kate and put his arm around her………”

All the above implies that GM not around whilst they were playing and as M was back in crèche at 2.45 till 5.30, with some slide play & then an hours football, GM must have been away since soon after 1.00 unless he was with the twins, returning them to KM in time for his tennis at 2.30, so she could take them to the crèche at 2.40, but the statement suggests she didn't get to see him till after the tennis.

GM’s re-arranged tennis class was from 2.30 till 3.30
KM’s re-arranged tennis from 3.30 till 4.30

KM Book Page 60
“Gerry & I picked up the children, had lunch in the apartment and then took them to the play area for an hour before walking them to their clubs. The tennis group lessons were rescheduled for the afternoon: Gerrys group first………”

No mention of M playing football with L for about an hour. What were the twins doing?

M signed out of crèche at 12.30, then back in at 14.45 till 17.30
Twins out at 12.25 then back in at 14.40 till 17.20

The Boyd’s do not appear to be on the OC’s listings for the week, (although the booking could possibly have been in Grandma’s name). Did guests or day visitors have to book in & out or pay?

There does not appear to be a record of an interview with the Boyd’s on file. Why on earth not???? (unless its part of the ‘withheld’ evidence).

Why is it that absolutely nothing makes logical sense and is as it seems in this case (rhetorical – don’t bother to answer that!)

What day was the underlying photo taken & who was in it? Still none the wiser.

...........................................

KM book page 60
'After that it was the usual routine: tea with the children, playtime, bathtime, milk, stories, kids bedtime, get ready, Tapas 8.30pm'

If they had their high tea out at the Tapas with the kids straight from the creche, M should still be in the clothes described by the Boyd's.

I'm leaning towards a Saturday afternoon shot for the four of them, when they first got there,(two girls clothes look like what they travelled in?), but the background I don't know

by Lance De Boils 06.01.14 17:19

If you zoom in on Maddie's left trainer, the bottom part is missing at the front. I noticed it yesterday, before I read it here just now.

That would fit with them being on sand at the time, for example, when the 'original' picture was taken.

I still this was originally a beach picture. (From their positions.)

[Not necessarily from Luz. Perhaps Donegal earlier in April?]

by Lance De Boils 06.01.14 17:25

Also, Gerry seems to be wearing the same shorts as the pool pic. You can see he's wearing a t-shirt under his jumper, so maybe it was taken on the same day - he just added a jumper?

However, my feeling is that the pool pic was taken either Sat or Sun. The weather in the playground pic is very cloudy and chilly looking. Which would not fit with either of those days. $i don\'t know$

by The Snapper 06.01.14 17:32

Are we sure that this is the original version of the picture and that it hasn't been tampered with since its release to make it look suspicious?

I don't understand why someone would release such a bad fake rather than issue nothing at all

Unless, of course, there was a very good reason - but how good would that have to be?

the biggest mistake - apart from having the shadows coming from two different directions several hours apart - was to make the later time impossible because it would have been getting dark by then

either the shadows of the passers by have been re-positioned, or the people themselves have been dropped in. I suspect the former

by Doug D 06.01.14 17:36

Pulled over from the weather thread:

Bobbin posted:

But Wednesday was bad weather wasn't it. Rainy in the morning so the tennis was cancelled. Where's the sun for sitting out on a sun-lounger with Maddie, ? in her little pink top? playing football yet already back in creche. Sounds like any child playing football must have been a child that did not normally go to creche in the afternoons, like Paynes' children. And whilst all this was happening, chatting away to Kate for so long, Gerry not there, where were the twins. Who was looking after them, but if they were themselves in creche, why wasn't Madeleine. More inconsistent crap.

So I then had a look at Tuesday:

And it can't have been Tuesday 1st after the alleged 'tennis' photo. The 'minis' had tennis between 10.00 & 11.00 which is when KM says she took the photo.

KM Book Page 57
'In the afternoon Gerry & I decided to take the children down to the beach...........we wanted to do something slightly different with them......We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner...........weather wasn't great........on beach it started to rain.....Having polished off her ice cream M asked if she could go back to Mini Club now, please.........We dropped the kids off at their clubs for the last hour and a half, meeting up with them as usual for tea.'
Yet M signed out from creche at 12.30, & back in by GM at 2.30, but never signed out again and twins back in by KM at 2.30 till 5.20.
It's clearly reassuring to know that MW maintain accurate records & look after the kids so well, so if the book is accurate (?) in this instance, have MW really got any idea who went sailing on Thursday morning (3rd).

Who has 'forged' the entries in the creche books and for what reason?
You might go ahead with a 'planned' trip to the beach in spite of the weather, in which case the afternoon entries would not have been made in the first place, but you would not, having signed the kids back in for the afternoon session, on a sudden impulse think 'lets all go to the beach as its such a crap day' & go & drag the kids back again just for an hour!

Unsurprisingly maybe, on the tennis booking sheets for 1st, there is an individual entry 'McCann G5a' for 2.30 - 3.30, as opposed to the usual 'Class 1' or 'Class 2' bookings for the group lessons, and this hasn't been deleted as have other cancelled or curtailed classes. I'm not even going to pass comment on that!

……………………………….

So Tuesday afternoon was a no-no, but if we are now looking at it as a late afternoon snap, the ‘after-tea’ windows could open up. It would be so nice to hear from the Boyd's as to when they were actually at the OC.

Log in for more topics