Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 13:10

aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
joyce1938 wrote: My question is ,, Is too much being made of all this photo stuff ,does it take away from anything else ,so many half truths etc .joyce1938

Yup, that's exactly what I've been saying.

And for those who have followed the case non stop for 7 years, the importance placed on the last photo has probably just gradually increased over time, unnoticed, along with the increase in people believing Madeleine died before May 3rd... but for somebody coming back to the case after a few years break it's shocking how the default position now seems to be that Madeleine died before May 3rd and that the last photo was either photoshopped or the date altered. The altered date theory does seem like a last ditch attempt to try to link the photo to a death before May 3rd , because experts have ruled out photoshopping. Presumably the experts didn't categorically say yes the date has been changed, they just said it may have been or it may actually be correct.
What explains the delay in producing the last photo?

The world's press were at the feet of the McCanns ready to rock in an instant with the last known photograph taken of Madeleine McCann. This is the photograph that could have jolted the memory of people in Praia da Luz on the day she allegedly disappeared to come forward, and who knows, perhaps remember there was a sinister person hanging around. This was THE photo to release not just to the police but to the media who would have happily pixelated Madeleine's sister from the photo.

This photograph was the last documented time Madeleine was seen in public wearing those clothes wasn't it?

So why the delay?

Has a witness ever come forward to confirm that they saw Madeleine at the pool on 3rd May wearing those clothes?

This isn't about who is right or wrong.

I'm with Nina on this. It's a bit like saying my dog is missing but here's a lovely photo of him when he was a puppy.

The "puppy" photo was the best face on, close up shot they had of her at short notice, late at night so I understand that being used. Other photos were released after that.I agree that maybe a pic with the clothes she was wearing would jog people's memories, even if she allegedly didn't go missing in those clothes, but in the early days the emphasis seemed to be on clear close ups of her.

Re a witness coming forward. No idea but thinking about it shortly before the last photo was released, police asked the public to send in photos they had taken around Ocean Club so that police could look at people in the background... now knowing that any of those pics could have them in the background on May 3rd would they really fake a photo for that day?
I'm not sure why you are so confident of what you have written.

I certainly couldn't be confident of any of the claims you make, especially in your first paragraph because it's too dismissive and emotive for me and it borders on apologetic without any fact (I'm not going to go into who actually asked for photographs as I know you know who did that - and it wasn't the police).

It's essentially your opinion.

I hope Madeleine has better folk on her side who make no apologies for anyone who was around her at the time of her disappearance.

There can be no excuse for the last photo not to have been published instantly to the press and it simply has to be questioned as to why this didn't happen.

God bless Madeleine.

Excuse me? Is that a personal comment about me. Implying that that I have or would have personally let Madeleine down in some way? Try attacking the argument not the poster!

I use logic and common sense. The night of the disappearance they wanted a pic of Madeleine's face to show people to see if they'd seen her. Common sense dictates that they would have gone for a close up, face on, hatless pic over a group shot where she is looking sideways and wearing a hat.

Are you saying you can't see that as a reasonable, logical explanation for why they used the pic they did?

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 13:18

Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Has Amaral ever given his thoughts on the last photo? As far as I know he believes she was alive on the afternoon of May 3rd.
That is also correct.

He believes that all those, including the McCanns, who gave evidence about Madeleine and her parents having had a 'high tea' together at around 5.30pm on 3 May, were telling the truth.

As do I, which makes faking a last photo to prove she was alive, unnecessary.
Not really.

If, for the sake of argument, the Portuguese police...

* doubted the David Payne visit to G5A at 6.30pm on 3 May

and also

* doubted the various and contradctory accounts of Madeleine at the 'high tea' at 5.30pm on 3 May...

then...

the Last Photo which was oh-so-definitely taken at 2.29pm on 3 May...

...would come in very handy.

Wouldn't it?

I wouldn't class Payne as a truly independent witness TBH but the people who saw her in the creche and at high tea were and I don't think there was any fear of them suddenly deciding she hadn't been there after all. Lobsters creche only had 4 children in that afternoon and one left before high tea, so only 3 were taken by the nanny to high tea.

by Liz Eagles 09.11.14 13:25

Stillthinking wrote:
aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
joyce1938 wrote: My question is ,, Is too much being made of all this photo stuff ,does it take away from anything else ,so many half truths etc .joyce1938

Yup, that's exactly what I've been saying.

And for those who have followed the case non stop for 7 years, the importance placed on the last photo has probably just gradually increased over time, unnoticed, along with the increase in people believing Madeleine died before May 3rd... but for somebody coming back to the case after a few years break it's shocking how the default position now seems to be that Madeleine died before May 3rd and that the last photo was either photoshopped or the date altered. The altered date theory does seem like a last ditch attempt to try to link the photo to a death before May 3rd , because experts have ruled out photoshopping. Presumably the experts didn't categorically say yes the date has been changed, they just said it may have been or it may actually be correct.
What explains the delay in producing the last photo?

The world's press were at the feet of the McCanns ready to rock in an instant with the last known photograph taken of Madeleine McCann. This is the photograph that could have jolted the memory of people in Praia da Luz on the day she allegedly disappeared to come forward, and who knows, perhaps remember there was a sinister person hanging around. This was THE photo to release not just to the police but to the media who would have happily pixelated Madeleine's sister from the photo.

This photograph was the last documented time Madeleine was seen in public wearing those clothes wasn't it?

So why the delay?

Has a witness ever come forward to confirm that they saw Madeleine at the pool on 3rd May wearing those clothes?

This isn't about who is right or wrong.

I'm with Nina on this. It's a bit like saying my dog is missing but here's a lovely photo of him when he was a puppy.

The "puppy" photo was the best face on, close up shot they had of her at short notice, late at night so I understand that being used. Other photos were released after that.I agree that maybe a pic with the clothes she was wearing would jog people's memories, even if she allegedly didn't go missing in those clothes, but in the early days the emphasis seemed to be on clear close ups of her.

Re a witness coming forward. No idea but thinking about it shortly before the last photo was released, police asked the public to send in photos they had taken around Ocean Club so that police could look at people in the background... now knowing that any of those pics could have them in the background on May 3rd would they really fake a photo for that day?
I'm not sure why you are so confident of what you have written.

I certainly couldn't be confident of any of the claims you make, especially in your first paragraph because it's too dismissive and emotive for me and it borders on apologetic without any fact (I'm not going to go into who actually asked for photographs as I know you know who did that - and it wasn't the police).

It's essentially your opinion.

I hope Madeleine has better folk on her side who make no apologies for anyone who was around her at the time of her disappearance.

There can be no excuse for the last photo not to have been published instantly to the press and it simply has to be questioned as to why this didn't happen.

God bless Madeleine.

Excuse me? Is that a personal comment about me. Implying that that I have or would have personally let Madeleine down in some way? Try attacking the argument not the poster!

I use logic and common sense. The night of the disappearance they wanted a pic of Madeleine's face to show people to see if they'd seen her. Common sense dictates that they would have gone for a close up, face on, hatless pic over a group shot where she is looking sideways and wearing a hat.

Are you saying you can't see that as a reasonable, logical explanation for why they used the pic they did?

Having already rung the UK media and various other important agencies, I'd have thought they (the Tapas crew) would have been busy looking for Madeleine rather than worrying about timelines and what photograph to release...oh wait, I've got it wrong....they should have been only looking for Madeleine because at that point she might have left the locked/unlocked apartment in search of her parents who were dining in somewhere akin to a back garden and she knew her way to the Tapas Bar in the dark.

The Tapas lot went to bed...they slept....even Madeleine's parents slept.

Sorry, I can't accept any excuses for that.

Finding a photograph and a printer etc (you know the files) is just not reasonable to accept when Madeleine might have been found just wandering about.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 13:37

aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
joyce1938 wrote: My question is ,, Is too much being made of all this photo stuff ,does it take away from anything else ,so many half truths etc .joyce1938

Yup, that's exactly what I've been saying.

And for those who have followed the case non stop for 7 years, the importance placed on the last photo has probably just gradually increased over time, unnoticed, along with the increase in people believing Madeleine died before May 3rd... but for somebody coming back to the case after a few years break it's shocking how the default position now seems to be that Madeleine died before May 3rd and that the last photo was either photoshopped or the date altered. The altered date theory does seem like a last ditch attempt to try to link the photo to a death before May 3rd , because experts have ruled out photoshopping. Presumably the experts didn't categorically say yes the date has been changed, they just said it may have been or it may actually be correct.
What explains the delay in producing the last photo?

The world's press were at the feet of the McCanns ready to rock in an instant with the last known photograph taken of Madeleine McCann. This is the photograph that could have jolted the memory of people in Praia da Luz on the day she allegedly disappeared to come forward, and who knows, perhaps remember there was a sinister person hanging around. This was THE photo to release not just to the police but to the media who would have happily pixelated Madeleine's sister from the photo.

This photograph was the last documented time Madeleine was seen in public wearing those clothes wasn't it?

So why the delay?

Has a witness ever come forward to confirm that they saw Madeleine at the pool on 3rd May wearing those clothes?

This isn't about who is right or wrong.

I'm with Nina on this. It's a bit like saying my dog is missing but here's a lovely photo of him when he was a puppy.

The "puppy" photo was the best face on, close up shot they had of her at short notice, late at night so I understand that being used. Other photos were released after that.I agree that maybe a pic with the clothes she was wearing would jog people's memories, even if she allegedly didn't go missing in those clothes, but in the early days the emphasis seemed to be on clear close ups of her.

Re a witness coming forward. No idea but thinking about it shortly before the last photo was released, police asked the public to send in photos they had taken around Ocean Club so that police could look at people in the background... now knowing that any of those pics could have them in the background on May 3rd would they really fake a photo for that day?
I'm not sure why you are so confident of what you have written.

I certainly couldn't be confident of any of the claims you make, especially in your first paragraph because it's too dismissive and emotive for me and it borders on apologetic without any fact (I'm not going to go into who actually asked for photographs as I know you know who did that - and it wasn't the police).

It's essentially your opinion.

I hope Madeleine has better folk on her side who make no apologies for anyone who was around her at the time of her disappearance.

There can be no excuse for the last photo not to have been published instantly to the press and it simply has to be questioned as to why this didn't happen.

God bless Madeleine.

Excuse me? Is that a personal comment about me. Implying that that I have or would have personally let Madeleine down in some way? Try attacking the argument not the poster!

I use logic and common sense. The night of the disappearance they wanted a pic of Madeleine's face to show people to see if they'd seen her. Common sense dictates that they would have gone for a close up, face on, hatless pic over a group shot where she is looking sideways and wearing a hat.

Are you saying you can't see that as a reasonable, logical explanation for why they used the pic they did?
Having already rung the UK media and various other important agencies, I'd have thought they (the Tapas crew) would have been busy looking for Madeleine rather than worrying about timelines and what photograph to release...oh wait, I've got it wrong....they should have been only looking for Madeleine because at that point she might have left the locked/unlocked apartment in search of her parents who were dining in somewhere akin to a back garden and she knew her way to the Tapas Bar in the dark.

The Tapas lot went to bed...they slept....even Madeleine's parents slept.

Sorry, I can't accept any excuses for that.

Finding a photograph and a printer etc (you know the files) is just not reasonable to accept when Madeleine might have been found just wandering about.

Now you're lumping various things together and accusing me of making excuses for them when all I've said is that... for the purpose of showing people what she looked like... I can see why they would pick a close up, face on shot over a group pic where she's wearing a hat and looking to the side.

I'll ask again... Are you saying you can't see that as a reasonable, logical explanation for why they used the pic they did?

Yes obviously people should be searching but it is also reasonable to try to find a photo of the missing child too, to print off to show people. I'm sure they'd be criticised more if they hadn't done that.

by Liz Eagles 09.11.14 13:47

Stillthinking wrote:
aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
joyce1938 wrote: My question is ,, Is too much being made of all this photo stuff ,does it take away from anything else ,so many half truths etc .joyce1938

Yup, that's exactly what I've been saying.

And for those who have followed the case non stop for 7 years, the importance placed on the last photo has probably just gradually increased over time, unnoticed, along with the increase in people believing Madeleine died before May 3rd... but for somebody coming back to the case after a few years break it's shocking how the default position now seems to be that Madeleine died before May 3rd and that the last photo was either photoshopped or the date altered. The altered date theory does seem like a last ditch attempt to try to link the photo to a death before May 3rd , because experts have ruled out photoshopping. Presumably the experts didn't categorically say yes the date has been changed, they just said it may have been or it may actually be correct.
What explains the delay in producing the last photo?

The world's press were at the feet of the McCanns ready to rock in an instant with the last known photograph taken of Madeleine McCann. This is the photograph that could have jolted the memory of people in Praia da Luz on the day she allegedly disappeared to come forward, and who knows, perhaps remember there was a sinister person hanging around. This was THE photo to release not just to the police but to the media who would have happily pixelated Madeleine's sister from the photo.

This photograph was the last documented time Madeleine was seen in public wearing those clothes wasn't it?

So why the delay?

Has a witness ever come forward to confirm that they saw Madeleine at the pool on 3rd May wearing those clothes?

This isn't about who is right or wrong.

I'm with Nina on this. It's a bit like saying my dog is missing but here's a lovely photo of him when he was a puppy.

The "puppy" photo was the best face on, close up shot they had of her at short notice, late at night so I understand that being used. Other photos were released after that.I agree that maybe a pic with the clothes she was wearing would jog people's memories, even if she allegedly didn't go missing in those clothes, but in the early days the emphasis seemed to be on clear close ups of her.

Re a witness coming forward. No idea but thinking about it shortly before the last photo was released, police asked the public to send in photos they had taken around Ocean Club so that police could look at people in the background... now knowing that any of those pics could have them in the background on May 3rd would they really fake a photo for that day?
I'm not sure why you are so confident of what you have written.

I certainly couldn't be confident of any of the claims you make, especially in your first paragraph because it's too dismissive and emotive for me and it borders on apologetic without any fact (I'm not going to go into who actually asked for photographs as I know you know who did that - and it wasn't the police).

It's essentially your opinion.

I hope Madeleine has better folk on her side who make no apologies for anyone who was around her at the time of her disappearance.

There can be no excuse for the last photo not to have been published instantly to the press and it simply has to be questioned as to why this didn't happen.

God bless Madeleine.

Excuse me? Is that a personal comment about me. Implying that that I have or would have personally let Madeleine down in some way? Try attacking the argument not the poster!

I use logic and common sense. The night of the disappearance they wanted a pic of Madeleine's face to show people to see if they'd seen her. Common sense dictates that they would have gone for a close up, face on, hatless pic over a group shot where she is looking sideways and wearing a hat.

Are you saying you can't see that as a reasonable, logical explanation for why they used the pic they did?
Having already rung the UK media and various other important agencies, I'd have thought they (the Tapas crew) would have been busy looking for Madeleine rather than worrying about timelines and what photograph to release...oh wait, I've got it wrong....they should have been only looking for Madeleine because at that point she might have left the locked/unlocked apartment in search of her parents who were dining in somewhere akin to a back garden and she knew her way to the Tapas Bar in the dark.

The Tapas lot went to bed...they slept....even Madeleine's parents slept.

Sorry, I can't accept any excuses for that.

Finding a photograph and a printer etc (you know the files) is just not reasonable to accept when Madeleine might have been found just wandering about.
Now you're lumping various things together and accusing me of making excuses for them when all I've said is that I can see why they would pic a close up face on shot over a group pic where she's wearing a hat and looking to the side.

Yes obviously people should be searching but it is also reasonable to try to find a photo of the missing child too, to print off to show people. I'm sure they'd be criticised more if they hadn't done that.

Last photo.

Should have been given to the media on 4th May 2007.

It wasn't.

How ever much you try to explain it, the fact is the cavalry arrived in force - that would be the PR, the media etc....and yet not one of them was given the last photo taken of Madeleine until much later - and that would be when GM returned from UK with Clarence Mitchell in tow.

Pull the other one if you think this is about Madeleine.

by plebgate 09.11.14 13:50

How many people does it take to find a photo on a camera rather than be out looking for a lost little girl?

by j.rob 09.11.14 13:51

Now you're lumping various things together and accusing me of making excuses for them when all I've said is that... for the purpose of showing people what she looked like... I can see why they would pick a close up, face on shot over a group pic where she's wearing a hat and looking to the side.

I'll ask again... Are you saying you can't see that as a reasonable, logical explanation for why they used the pic they did?

Yes obviously people should be searching but it is also reasonable to try to find a photo of the missing child too, to print off to show people. I'm sure they'd be criticised more if they hadn't done that

------------

Why not use an up-to-date photo? The photo released in the early poster looks like a much younger version of Madeleine. More like a child of three or even two than a child who is days away from being four?

Assuming it was even Madeleine in that early poster of course.

And why was the writing on the poster so unhelpful? Not even stating her name. Giving the wrong age. Not stating where she (allegedly) stolen from - which apartment? That would be critical information. Not stating what time she was (allegedly) stolen. That also would be absolutely critical information.

And why did the early campaign to find Madeleine heavily promote the FACT that she had a colomba? When it is a FACT that she does not? There are quite a few FACTS in this case. But they are not the 'theories' promoted by the McCanns and their acolytes.

And why hasn't Philip Hodge, put into the public domain the photo that he has claimed he has which he claims shows Madeleine McCann in the background on Thursday 3rd May? Why not release it?

by Liz Eagles 09.11.14 13:53

plebgate wrote:How many people does it take to find a photo on a camera rather than be out looking for a lost little girl?

In excess of 9.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 14:00

aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
joyce1938 wrote: My question is ,, Is too much being made of all this photo stuff ,does it take away from anything else ,so many half truths etc .joyce1938

Yup, that's exactly what I've been saying.

And for those who have followed the case non stop for 7 years, the importance placed on the last photo has probably just gradually increased over time, unnoticed, along with the increase in people believing Madeleine died before May 3rd... but for somebody coming back to the case after a few years break it's shocking how the default position now seems to be that Madeleine died before May 3rd and that the last photo was either photoshopped or the date altered. The altered date theory does seem like a last ditch attempt to try to link the photo to a death before May 3rd , because experts have ruled out photoshopping. Presumably the experts didn't categorically say yes the date has been changed, they just said it may have been or it may actually be correct.
What explains the delay in producing the last photo?

The world's press were at the feet of the McCanns ready to rock in an instant with the last known photograph taken of Madeleine McCann. This is the photograph that could have jolted the memory of people in Praia da Luz on the day she allegedly disappeared to come forward, and who knows, perhaps remember there was a sinister person hanging around. This was THE photo to release not just to the police but to the media who would have happily pixelated Madeleine's sister from the photo.

This photograph was the last documented time Madeleine was seen in public wearing those clothes wasn't it?

So why the delay?

Has a witness ever come forward to confirm that they saw Madeleine at the pool on 3rd May wearing those clothes?

This isn't about who is right or wrong.

I'm with Nina on this. It's a bit like saying my dog is missing but here's a lovely photo of him when he was a puppy.

The "puppy" photo was the best face on, close up shot they had of her at short notice, late at night so I understand that being used. Other photos were released after that.I agree that maybe a pic with the clothes she was wearing would jog people's memories, even if she allegedly didn't go missing in those clothes, but in the early days the emphasis seemed to be on clear close ups of her.

Re a witness coming forward. No idea but thinking about it shortly before the last photo was released, police asked the public to send in photos they had taken around Ocean Club so that police could look at people in the background... now knowing that any of those pics could have them in the background on May 3rd would they really fake a photo for that day?
I'm not sure why you are so confident of what you have written.

I certainly couldn't be confident of any of the claims you make, especially in your first paragraph because it's too dismissive and emotive for me and it borders on apologetic without any fact (I'm not going to go into who actually asked for photographs as I know you know who did that - and it wasn't the police).

It's essentially your opinion.

I hope Madeleine has better folk on her side who make no apologies for anyone who was around her at the time of her disappearance.

There can be no excuse for the last photo not to have been published instantly to the press and it simply has to be questioned as to why this didn't happen.

God bless Madeleine.

Excuse me? Is that a personal comment about me. Implying that that I have or would have personally let Madeleine down in some way? Try attacking the argument not the poster!

I use logic and common sense. The night of the disappearance they wanted a pic of Madeleine's face to show people to see if they'd seen her. Common sense dictates that they would have gone for a close up, face on, hatless pic over a group shot where she is looking sideways and wearing a hat.

Are you saying you can't see that as a reasonable, logical explanation for why they used the pic they did?
Having already rung the UK media and various other important agencies, I'd have thought they (the Tapas crew) would have been busy looking for Madeleine rather than worrying about timelines and what photograph to release...oh wait, I've got it wrong....they should have been only looking for Madeleine because at that point she might have left the locked/unlocked apartment in search of her parents who were dining in somewhere akin to a back garden and she knew her way to the Tapas Bar in the dark.

The Tapas lot went to bed...they slept....even Madeleine's parents slept.

Sorry, I can't accept any excuses for that.

Finding a photograph and a printer etc (you know the files) is just not reasonable to accept when Madeleine might have been found just wandering about.
Now you're lumping various things together and accusing me of making excuses for them when all I've said is that I can see why they would pic a close up face on shot over a group pic where she's wearing a hat and looking to the side.

Yes obviously people should be searching but it is also reasonable to try to find a photo of the missing child too, to print off to show people. I'm sure they'd be criticised more if they hadn't done that.
Last photo.

Should have been given to the media on 4th May 2007.

It wasn't.

How ever much you try to explain it, the fact is the cavalry arrived in force - that would be the PR, the media etc....and yet not one of them was given the last photo taken of Madeleine until much later - and that would be when GM returned from UK with Clarence Mitchell in tow.

Pull the other one if you think this is about Madeleine.

Has she been wearing the clothes she went missing in on the last photo, then maybe they'd be more of an argument that it should have been given to the media earlier. But she wasn't. And yes maybe Clarence did explain the extra attention a last pic would get when he arrived.

What is your theory for them not using the last photo to print off the night she went missing?

Are you denying that wanting a close up of her face is a logical reason for picking the pic they did , over the group shot?

by plebgate 09.11.14 14:02

What is your theory for them not going out looking for their lost little girl stillthinking?

Oh yeah, they were all looking for a pic on a camera.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 14:10

j.rob wrote:Now you're lumping various things together and accusing me of making excuses for them when all I've said is that... for the purpose of showing people what she looked like... I can see why they would pick a close up, face on shot over a group pic where she's wearing a hat and looking to the side.

I'll ask again... Are you saying you can't see that as a reasonable, logical explanation for why they used the pic they did?

Yes obviously people should be searching but it is also reasonable to try to find a photo of the missing child too, to print off to show people. I'm sure they'd be criticised more if they hadn't done that

------------

Why not use an up-to-date photo? The photo released in the early poster looks like a much younger version of Madeleine. More like a child of three or even two than a child who is days away from being four?

Assuming it was even Madeleine in that early poster of course.

And why was the writing on the poster so unhelpful? Not even stating her name. Giving the wrong age. Not stating where she (allegedly) stolen from - which apartment? That would be critical information. Not stating what time she was (allegedly) stolen. That also would be absolutely critical information.

And why did the early campaign to find Madeleine heavily promote the FACT that she had a colomba? When it is a FACT that she does not? There are quite a few FACTS in this case. But they are not the 'theories' promoted by the McCanns and their acolytes.

And why hasn't Philip Hodge, put into the public domain the photo that he has claimed he has which he claims shows Madeleine McCann in the background on Thursday 3rd May? Why not release it?

Russell explained in his statement why they ended up with that pic and I've given logical reasons. The main aim was to show people what the girl who had gone missing that night looked like.

So why do you think that pic was used ?

Not sure all the other questions belong on a thread about the authenticity of the last photo.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 14:15

plebgate wrote:What is your theory for them not going out looking for their lost little girl stillthinking?

Oh yeah, they were all looking for a pic on a camera.

Try to avoid putting words in my mouth Plebgate.

There are many things I find strange in this case; the last photo not being used the night she went mssing is not one, looking for a pic of a missing child to show people what she looked like is not one.

People were still searching while a pic was being found.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.14 14:32

Stillthinking wrote:
I use logic and common sense.

You could've fooled me.

The night of the disappearance they wanted a pic of Madeleine's face to show people to see if they'd seen her.

Common sense dictates that they would have gone for a close up, face on, hatless pic over a group shot where she is looking sideways and wearing a hat. Are you saying you can't see that as a reasonable, logical explanation for why they used the pic they did?

Now then, if we're looking for a 'common sense' or 'logical' thing to do on 3 May when Madeleine is suddenly abducted, which of these do you choose:

1. Give the police your camera and tell them there's a couple of dozen lovely photos of her on holiday right here in Praia da Luz in your camera(s), to help people know who they're looking for, or

2. Withhold the camera from the police, delete shoals of photos on it, and produce one of her taken a year or more before, somewhere in England?

Please apply principles of 'common sense' and 'logic' when supplying your answer

by plebgate 09.11.14 14:39

Stillthinking wrote:
plebgate wrote:What is your theory for them not going out looking for their lost little girl stillthinking?

Oh yeah, they were all looking for a pic on a camera.

Try to avoid putting words in my mouth Plebgate.

There are many things I find strange in this case; the last photo not being used the night she went mssing is not one, looking for a pic of a missing child to show people what she looked like is not one.

People were still searching while a pic was being found.

I am not putting words in your mouth.

Snipped from one of your posts stillthinking:

"
Yes obviously people should be searching but it is also reasonable to try to find a photo of the missing child too, to print off to show people. I'm sure they'd be criticised more if they hadn't done that"

You said it, not me.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 14:45

Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
I use logic and common sense.

You could've fooled me.

The night of the disappearance they wanted a pic of Madeleine's face to show people to see if they'd seen her.

Common sense dictates that they would have gone for a close up, face on, hatless pic over a group shot where she is looking sideways and wearing a hat. Are you saying you can't see that as a reasonable, logical explanation for why they used the pic they did?

Now then, if we're looking for a 'common sense' or 'logical' thing to do on 3 May when Madeleine is suddenly abducted, which of these do you choose:

1. Give the police your camera and tell them there's a couple of dozen lovely photos of her on holiday right here in Praia da Luz in your camera(s), to help people know who they're looking for, or

2. Withhold the camera from the police, delete shoals of photos on it, and produce one of her taken a year or more before, somewhere in England?

Please apply principles of 'common sense' and 'logic' when supplying your answer

Tony, I prefer my definition of common sense and logic to yours. You regularly make simple errors based on a lack of either.

You make it sound like police demanded the camera and they refused. Yet you know that didn't happen.

I would expect police to ask me for anything they needed. Would I follow their advice not to involve the media etc, probably not to be honest.

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 14:47

plebgate wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
plebgate wrote:What is your theory for them not going out looking for their lost little girl stillthinking?

Oh yeah, they were all looking for a pic on a camera.

Try to avoid putting words in my mouth Plebgate.

There are many things I find strange in this case; the last photo not being used the night she went mssing is not one, looking for a pic of a missing child to show people what she looked like is not one.

People were still searching while a pic was being found.
I am not putting words in your mouth.

Snipped from one of your posts stillthinking:

"
Yes obviously people should be searching but it is also reasonable to try to find a photo of the missing child too, to print off to show people. I'm sure they'd be criticised more if they hadn't done that"

You said it, not me.

How does that say that searching and finding a photo weren't both possible?

by Liz Eagles 09.11.14 14:49

Stillthinking wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
I use logic and common sense.

You could've fooled me.

The night of the disappearance they wanted a pic of Madeleine's face to show people to see if they'd seen her.

Common sense dictates that they would have gone for a close up, face on, hatless pic over a group shot where she is looking sideways and wearing a hat. Are you saying you can't see that as a reasonable, logical explanation for why they used the pic they did?

Now then, if we're looking for a 'common sense' or 'logical' thing to do on 3 May when Madeleine is suddenly abducted, which of these do you choose:

1. Give the police your camera and tell them there's a couple of dozen lovely photos of her on holiday right here in Praia da Luz in your camera(s), to help people know who they're looking for, or

2. Withhold the camera from the police, delete shoals of photos on it, and produce one of her taken a year or more before, somewhere in England?

Please apply principles of 'common sense' and 'logic' when supplying your answer

Tony, I prefer my definition of common sense and logic to yours. You regularly make simple errors based on a lack of either.

You make it sound like police demanded the camera and they refused. Yet you know that didn't happen.

I would expect police to ask me for anything they needed. Would I follow their advice not to involve the media etc, probably not to be honest.

Would you follow the advice of the police to not produce the fact that your daughter has gone missing in case there was a randsom note and then promote a coloboma in an almost immediate campaign which could harm her?

Would you do that to your daughter?

by plebgate 09.11.14 14:53

oh please, read all your posts through carefully and come to your own conclusions. I think that in your quest to appear clever, you are actually tying yourself up in knots. My opinion only, but it is becoming quite boring for me so bye.

@stillthinking

by sallypelt 09.11.14 14:54

According to the PJ files, this is how the first photograph to be distributed, came about

This is taken from Amy Tierney's SECOND statement, that took place nearly a year after the first:

Has made previous statements in May last year.

Given that she does not speak Portuguese, Silvia Batista acted as interpreter.

When questioned and shown the photographs referred to in the previous statements, depicting the English girl, on 'Kodak Xtra Life ' paper, 10 x 15, she said they were printed on her printer, also of Kodak brand.

When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware, which could read from memory sticks.

She went to her room and returned to the Tapas with the printer where she printed out 20 to 30 photographs of the girl, using her own paper, in 10x15 format mentioned previously. The memory stick containing the photos belonged to the McCann couple, and came from their camera.

She thinks that all of this took place at about 24.00 on 3rd May 2007. She presumes that she handed all of the photos to Russell, who distributed some to those present, the rest would be for the police authorities.

As regards her printer, she says that it is no longer in her possession as it is now with her boyfriend in France, she says, after consultation, and in accordance with her previous statements, that is was a 'Kodak', model Easy Share G60, of thermal ink transfer, with continuous tonality.

In annex, is documentation about the printer, describing its technical characteristics, which she recognises as being identical to her printer.

No more is said. She signs the statement together with the interpreter

END

Now look at Amy's FIRST statement, given in June 2007:

Amy Tierney

Date: 2007-05-06

Place: P da L

Occupation: Head of the Baby Club and Mini Club

Place of Work: Ocean Club

She comes to the process as a witness.

As she does not understand Portuguese and is of English nationality she is assisted by the interpreter Robert Murat who accompanies her during the questioning.

When asked, the witness confirms that she has been in Portugal since the 18th March 2007 having come to Portugal to work in this tourist resort.

She confirms that she works as head of the Baby Club and Mini Club, the former being for children aged up to eleven months and the latter for children aged between three and five.

She confirms that Madeleine is known by her as frequenting the Mini Club, as she was aged almost four.

When questioned about Madeleine's behaviour, the witness says that she is a shy girl but very intelligent for her age, she tended to play with older children, the witness describes her attitude and behaviour as perfectly normal.

The witness confirms that she also knows Madeleine's parents as they would go to fetch her from the club, but she adds that it was normally Madeleine's father who did this.

When questioned, the witness states that she has not noted anything abnormal in the relation between the child and the parents.

The hours of the club are from 09.00 to 12.30 and from 14.30 to 17.30, the club is closed on Sundays on that day it only offers the dinner service.

When questioned, she says that if the guests wish so they can request services from the "Staff" who would look after the children from 19.30 to 23.30, however Madeleine's parents never did this although the service is free.

She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.

The first idea that occurred to her was that the girl could have left by her own means, however after checking that the window was open and the shutter raised she asked the parents whether Madeleine's shoes were there, to which they replied that they were, these facts led her to think that Madeleine could have been taken by someone.

However there was a bed against the window, which could have enabled the girl to climb up onto it and then up to the window, the witness thinks it would not be possible as she would not be able to open the shutters and even if she had done so she would have fallen outside as the window is too high for a child of that age to be able to descend without falling.

In reply to the question asked, she said that the back door (porta das traseiras) that leads to the parking area was closed, but she doesn't know whether the front door (porta da frente) was locked as when she arrived both the parents and a female friend of theirs whose name she does not know, were there and that is why the door was open.

After having searched the apartment and verified that the girl was not there, the outside searches were begun.

The witness confirms that the girl's father went to the reception to call the police as soon as her disappearance was noticed and that twenty minutes had passed. The GNR took 30 â€“ 35 minutes to arrive.

She says that at no moment did she notice anyone behaving strangely as concerns the children or anything that appeared at all suspicious to her.

She adds that the staff looking after the children were eleven employees, who worked in shifts regarding the hours from 19.30 to 23.30.

The witness remembers that upon entering the bedroom at the time of the disappearance, she saw that the bed that the two babies were sleeping (reparou que a cama que os dois bebes encontravam-se a dormir) and she saw that the bedclothes of the bed near the window were rumpled as if someone had been sitting there, that the bedclothes of Madeleine's bed had been pushed back and that on top of the bed was a small child's blanket and a cuddly toy.

She states that the distance between the apartment and the restaurant where Madeleine's parents were was 30 seconds by foot away but that there was no visual contact with the back window of the bedroom where Madeleine was. From the restaurant just the front window of the apartment could be seen.

The witness does not remember any element that could be useful to the investigation

END

Now WHY didn't she mention the that she had been the person who had been responsible for the printing of the photographs? Was it because she was never asked? When was it first know to the PJ that SHE was the one who printed out the photographs? And again, as has been asked so many times, why did she use a pic of a much younger Madeleine?

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.14 14:57

Stillthinking wrote:
Tony, I prefer my definition of common sense and logic to yours. You regularly make simple errors based on a lack of either.

@ Stillthinking - That's quite a serious accusation from a fellow-poster and arguably in breach of forum rules.

Please either withdraw that claim now

OR

proivde one clear example of 'a simple error based on a lack of either common sense or logic'

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 15:03

aquila wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Stillthinking wrote:
I use logic and common sense.

You could've fooled me.

The night of the disappearance they wanted a pic of Madeleine's face to show people to see if they'd seen her.

Common sense dictates that they would have gone for a close up, face on, hatless pic over a group shot where she is looking sideways and wearing a hat. Are you saying you can't see that as a reasonable, logical explanation for why they used the pic they did?

Now then, if we're looking for a 'common sense' or 'logical' thing to do on 3 May when Madeleine is suddenly abducted, which of these do you choose:

1. Give the police your camera and tell them there's a couple of dozen lovely photos of her on holiday right here in Praia da Luz in your camera(s), to help people know who they're looking for, or

2. Withhold the camera from the police, delete shoals of photos on it, and produce one of her taken a year or more before, somewhere in England?

Please apply principles of 'common sense' and 'logic' when supplying your answer

Tony, I prefer my definition of common sense and logic to yours. You regularly make simple errors based on a lack of either.

You make it sound like police demanded the camera and they refused. Yet you know that didn't happen.

I would expect police to ask me for anything they needed. Would I follow their advice not to involve the media etc, probably not to be honest.
Would you follow the advice of the police to not produce the fact that your daughter has gone missing in case there was a randsom note and then promote a coloboma in an almost immediate campaign which could harm her?

Would you do that to your daughter?

I can't think of another missing child case where it hasn't been all over the news straight away (even more so now with Twitter and Facebook) and it's always been stressed how crucial it is to get details of a missing child out as soon as possible. You've said yourself you'd have released the "last photo" to the media on May 4th!

by Stillthinking 09.11.14 15:07

plebgate wrote:oh please, read all your posts through carefully and come to your own conclusions. I think that in your quest to appear clever, you are actually tying yourself up in knots. My opinion only, but it is becoming quite boring for me so bye.

@stillthinking

Lol, I'm not trying to appear clever . I'm just expressing my point of view like everybody else. It is perfectly possible for searches to continue whilst a photo is being found, and in fact that's what did happen. The searches didn't come to a standstill because every single person was crowded round a camera looking for a photo.

As for boring you... *shrugs*

by Miraflores 09.11.14 15:57

The searches didn't come to a standstill because every single person was crowded round a camera looking for a photo.

What searches were these? The one hour's worth of searching that Kate McCann's book says that they made?

by **PeterMac** 09.11.14 16:36

They used the Last Photo for the begging buckets.

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

by Gaggzy 09.11.14 17:38

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

Wow, there's not much money in the bottom of that bucket.

Ah well, they've certainly made up for that ever since.