The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Wednesday 2nd of May

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by aiyoyo on 24.04.12 15:51

@admin wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:I don't believe mccanns ever say publicly that she has a coloboma. They mentioned it was a tiny fleck.
The coloboma was originated or attributed to her by police or posters whatever IIRC.
It was a misconception that the fleck kate mentioned could be coloboma. Did the tabloid ever report it as a "coloboma"?
Far as I know mccanns never use the word coloboma. In short the word didnt originate from her.

G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris. I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3214-why-have-the-mccanns-lied-about-maddie-s-coloboma-for-4-years?highlight=coloboma

Back in the 3As days when this was discussed, I read up about the defect, but couldnt retain anything about it.
So I have just googled it again on healthline, and below is an excerpt of it ,which I think of some significance.

Treatment and management
Colobomas may be accompanied by other problems that may be neurological or chromosomal in nature. In addition, some genetic syndromes also include coloboma as part of the disorder's potential findings. More importantly, a specific combination of abnormalities identified by the acronym CHARGE must also be considered when a diagnosis of coloboma is made.


The medical condition known as CHARGE association is a very rare and serious condition. Individuals that have the condition will require attention from several specialists and treatment from an early age. Colobomas are usually one of the findings in individuals with CHARGE. The disorder includes these problems:

• (C)oloboma
• (H)eart defects
• (A)tresia of the choanae, which is a blockage of the nasal passages
• (R)etarded growth and development
• (G)enital hypoplasia, which occurs when the testes do not descend properly
• (E)ar abnormalities
While there is no specific treatment for coloboma, some treatments are available that can manage vision problems associated with the disorder. For example, physicians often recommend cosmetic contact lenses and sunglasses for individuals whose eyesight is adversely affected. Additional optical aids are often helpful such as eye patching. Since many indivduals with coloboma are highly sensitive to light, opthalmologists often recommend special lights or other personalized visual aids.

If she did have it then the Mccanns are lacking in their responsibility, even callous, for not having appealed to her captor to take note or pay special attention to her condition. Therefore I am still of the belief she has a tiny fleck nothing to do with coloboma ( a birth defect). I think her fleck is more of an birth mark then birth defect, and whether the mccanns capitalised on it or not is dependant on what suits their agenda at that point of time.



aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 319
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by Miraflores on 24.04.12 15:54

Far as I know mccanns never use the word coloboma. In short the word didnt originate from her.

Well, I believe that they did. I distinctly recall Kate McCann saying this in an early interview. However, I have not been able to find which interview it was so maybe it was whooshed.

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by tigger on 24.04.12 16:14

@admin wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:I don't believe mccanns ever say publicly that she has a coloboma. They mentioned it was a tiny fleck.
The coloboma was originated or attributed to her by police or posters whatever IIRC.
It was a misconception that the fleck kate mentioned could be coloboma. Did the tabloid ever report it as a "coloboma"?
Far as I know mccanns never use the word coloboma. In short the word didnt originate from her.

G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris. I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems.

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3214-why-have-the-mccanns-lied-about-maddie-s-coloboma-for-4-years?highlight=coloboma


OK, this is a doctor speaking. Not some nincompoop who can't remember words of more than two syllables. They lied. Easy, safe. She was never going to be found and it was a marketing ploy. It worked.
There was a minority on the internet who did not believe it.
There was no way to prove it wasn't true without medical records or without family and friends giving it away.
The iconic photo was and still is a 'trigger' to remind people of the whole affair. That's why later mock-ups aren't popular. They don't sell papers.

Above, where' I've bolded it, Gerry is actually telling us that other people have got it wrong. He believes it wouldn't have changed.
He is telling us we've got it wrong. He thinks although the technical term is coloboma, it probably isn't. It's just a bit of colour.
It's a pattern to be still there. Weird sentence.

So it's a pattern and it's still there and it's just a bit of colour (which is in all irises). But Gerry, either it's there or it's not, you can't have it both ways.
So there you have it, all wrongly interpreted, by us - the backward public.

I'm sure the medical records were withheld for other reasons altogether.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by friedtomatoes on 24.04.12 16:17

For what it is worth, the photo of Madeleine in the play area in the playhouse is said to have been taken on the Wednesday. IIRC it was either in the book by the mother or stated as such in a recent newspaper article.

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by tigger on 24.04.12 16:31

@friedtomatoes wrote:For what it is worth, the photo of Madeleine in the play area in the playhouse is said to have been taken on the Wednesday. IIRC it was either in the book by the mother or stated as such in a recent newspaper article.

That's weird, because I thought it was supposed to be the day they arrived. I've never thought it was Maddie for 'stupid' reasons:
the smile is confident and carefree - not often seen in Maddie.
The clothes look like the ones on the bus, but fit better and tighter and are pretty. The shoes - never heard of or seen again, look new.
Her height doesn't correspond to that of the tennis girl, who is taller.
She looks older than the pool photo girl.
I think (just my own opinion) that the front four teeth look closer together.
She looks very healthy.

If that is Maddie, IMO that photo was taken on the Saturday at the latest. But there are a lot of things wrong with the other playground photo, so for me the whole playground photoshoot is suspect.
To conclude: why only two photographs from the playground? Is that all they could manage? Not Maddie playing with the twins? All together in the little house? Two photographs for a playground session seems - not a lot!

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by sami on 24.04.12 17:45

@tigger wrote:
@friedtomatoes wrote:For what it is worth, the photo of Madeleine in the play area in the playhouse is said to have been taken on the Wednesday. IIRC it was either in the book by the mother or stated as such in a recent newspaper article.

That's weird, because I thought it was supposed to be the day they arrived. I've never thought it was Maddie for 'stupid' reasons:
the smile is confident and carefree - not often seen in Maddie.
The clothes look like the ones on the bus, but fit better and tighter and are pretty. The shoes - never heard of or seen again, look new.
Her height doesn't correspond to that of the tennis girl, who is taller.
She looks older than the pool photo girl.
I think (just my own opinion) that the front four teeth look closer together.
She looks very healthy.

If that is Maddie, IMO that photo was taken on the Saturday at the latest. But there are a lot of things wrong with the other playground photo, so for me the whole playground photoshoot is suspect.
To conclude: why only two photographs from the playground? Is that all they could manage? Not Maddie playing with the twins? All together in the little house? Two photographs for a playground session seems - not a lot!


The police must know when that photograph was taken. Remember the tall dark man standing behind the playhouse - did it not turn out he was an off duty Portugese police officer. All the PJ had to do was ask him when he was there ?

sami

Posts : 965
Reputation : 53
Join date : 2012-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by Lance De Boils on 24.04.12 18:37

Copying here a post I made on another thread (A Line in the Sand) because it relates to the 2nd:

And, coincidentally, that (Wed 2nd) was the one and only night that O'Donnell & Wilkins decided to use the evening kiddie club facility and, according to O'Donnell in her Guardian article, Jes ended up carrying their 3 yr old blonde, sleeping daughter back to their apartment wrapped in a blanket. A 10 minute walk, she stated.
Did anyone happen to witness him walking the streets, carrying a sleeping child, wrapped in a bundle that night? A child the same age as Madeleine? Was she wearing pyjamas?
Are some dates getting mixed up, I wonder? (Intentionally or otherwise.)

Lance De Boils

Posts : 805
Reputation : 14
Join date : 2011-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by tuom on 24.04.12 18:51

@tigger wrote:
@Miraflores wrote:I always assumed that the original photo was used because it clearly showed the coloboma (which they have now decided they didn't make much of). The supposed last photo, and the tennis girl photo don't show this clearly.

I've always assumed that the coloboma, which I didn't believe long before they came clean, was a very useful marketing ploy.
1) they need not travel all over the place to verify whether a child was Maddie or not (likely to be thousands at the start)
2) it was a tremendous 'unique selling point' in marketing terms (they even tried to get Google to use their OO's)
3) IMO it was dropped because four years later, after the debacle of their entire plan, they desperately needed sightings to keep those who still believed them interested and to keep their headlines in the tabloids.

The photograph used with the coloboma added - was a masterstroke, which leads me to suspect planning and marketing advice. USP - the first thing hammered into you when you start a business. Besides, do you have a photograph of your child 18 months earlier still on your camera? Shouldn't that camera then have many hundreds of photographs on it taken between that time and the holiday?

It's as well to remember when discussing this case that we are not dealing with 'ordinary' people. I'm sure they'd agree - but no for the same reasons.

But I'm now derailing my topic

Sorry a little off topic here but before I lose my thought , if they had a picture of MMC on their camera from 18 months earlier would they not have had the Donegal pictures also ?

tuom

Posts : 530
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-03-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by tuom on 24.04.12 19:05

@aiyoyo wrote:Oh, forgot to say, I did find it strange Kate made absolutely no mention of Maddie's past at all in her bewk, as if Maddie had no history.
You would think a proud mum would at least remember everything about her child, especially a lost child makes everything poignant -- her school, mates , friends, best friend, her likes and dislikes, hobbies, favourite food, events, outings, etc etc.

Also, you would think in time like this, any parent would have mentioned and thanked Maddie's friends who asked, talked, remembered, or shared about Maddie, but NO, zilch, nothing. Kate tells us nothing about Maddie's friends as if she has none or she didnt attend school.
How strange that kate heard nothing from Maddie's friends or parents of her friends, to commiserate with mccanns or to show concern over Maddie's plight! Those are things a normal mum would talk and write about, and go on and on about until people get sicked and tired of hearing it.

Kate told us nothing about Maddie at all, other than "she's lovely". An inanimate thing or an abstract thing can also be lovely.



Agree fully , that amazed me about the bewk , it certainly did not live up to its name :

tuom

Posts : 530
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-03-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by Nina on 24.04.12 19:14

@tuom wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:Oh, forgot to say, I did find it strange Kate made absolutely no mention of Maddie's past at all in her bewk, as if Maddie had no history.
You would think a proud mum would at least remember everything about her child, especially a lost child makes everything poignant -- her school, mates , friends, best friend, her likes and dislikes, hobbies, favourite food, events, outings, etc etc.

Also, you would think in time like this, any parent would have mentioned and thanked Maddie's friends who asked, talked, remembered, or shared about Maddie, but NO, zilch, nothing. Kate tells us nothing about Maddie's friends as if she has none or she didnt attend school.
How strange that kate heard nothing from Maddie's friends or parents of her friends, to commiserate with mccanns or to show concern over Maddie's plight! Those are things a normal mum would talk and write about, and go on and on about until people get sicked and tired of hearing it.

Kate told us nothing about Maddie at all, other than "she's lovely". An inanimate thing or an abstract thing can also be lovely.



Agree fully , that amazed me about the bewk , it certainly did not live up to its name :

It was the name that sold it, just like the newspapers, use the name and the cash tills ring.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2695
Reputation : 240
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by friedtomatoes on 24.04.12 20:04

@tigger wrote:
@friedtomatoes wrote:For what it is worth, the photo of Madeleine in the play area in the playhouse is said to have been taken on the Wednesday. IIRC it was either in the book by the mother or stated as such in a recent newspaper article.

That's weird, because I thought it was supposed to be the day they arrived. I've never thought it was Maddie for 'stupid' reasons:
the smile is confident and carefree - not often seen in Maddie.
The clothes look like the ones on the bus, but fit better and tighter and are pretty. The shoes - never heard of or seen again, look new.
Her height doesn't correspond to that of the tennis girl, who is taller.
She looks older than the pool photo girl.
I think (just my own opinion) that the front four teeth look closer together.
She looks very healthy.

If that is Maddie, IMO that photo was taken on the Saturday at the latest. But there are a lot of things wrong with the other playground photo, so for me the whole playground photoshoot is suspect.
To conclude: why only two photographs from the playground? Is that all they could manage? Not Maddie playing with the twins? All together in the little house? Two photographs for a playground session seems - not a lot!

Her track suit bottoms in the playground photos are very long, too long, and different from the three quarter length trousers she was seen wearing on the video of them on the bus, so I do not agree they must be the same day. I agree with you that she looks different in different photos. There are more photos of her in the playground taken with the other children, not all have been released but they are in the PJ files. I tend not to make much of anything that doesn't actually ring any alarm bells.

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by russiandoll on 24.04.12 20:06

Did one of the posters not say look for Maddies coloboma? The parents would at least have had approval over that even if not thought up by them?

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by friedtomatoes on 24.04.12 20:09

@sami wrote:
@tigger wrote:
@friedtomatoes wrote:For what it is worth, the photo of Madeleine in the play area in the playhouse is said to have been taken on the Wednesday. IIRC it was either in the book by the mother or stated as such in a recent newspaper article.

That's weird, because I thought it was supposed to be the day they arrived. I've never thought it was Maddie for 'stupid' reasons:
the smile is confident and carefree - not often seen in Maddie.
The clothes look like the ones on the bus, but fit better and tighter and are pretty. The shoes - never heard of or seen again, look new.
Her height doesn't correspond to that of the tennis girl, who is taller.
She looks older than the pool photo girl.
I think (just my own opinion) that the front four teeth look closer together.
She looks very healthy.

If that is Maddie, IMO that photo was taken on the Saturday at the latest. But there are a lot of things wrong with the other playground photo, so for me the whole playground photoshoot is suspect.
To conclude: why only two photographs from the playground? Is that all they could manage? Not Maddie playing with the twins? All together in the little house? Two photographs for a playground session seems - not a lot!


The police must know when that photograph was taken. Remember the tall dark man standing behind the playhouse - did it not turn out he was an off duty Portugese police officer. All the PJ had to do was ask him when he was there ?

The PJ were satisfied that Madeleine was seen alive late afternoon of the 3rd May, they would not be trying to find out when certain pictures were taken before that. As for the black man, IIRC it was never proved he was a policeman off duty, we have certain conspiracy bloggers that spread misinformation and speculation as fact to thank for that one.

____________________


friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by friedtomatoes on 24.04.12 20:11

@russiandoll wrote:Did one of the posters not say look for Maddies coloboma? The parents would at least have had approval over that even if not thought up by them?

Yes. Look at the photo banner on the top of the page!
big grin

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by HiDeHo on 24.04.12 20:20

There are photos not released as well as the 150 black and white photos which I separated and numbered but have yet to identify most.

Title: B/W Photos Full Size in order (approx)
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Black-White-Photos/B-W-Photos-Full-Size-in-order-approx-1-1016542.html

Title: B/W Playground Photos
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Black-White-Photos/B-W-Playground-Photos-1-1016254.html



As far as the day the playground pics were taken.....if it was on Saturday (as some of the children seem to have the same clothing as the bus video as well as Gerry possibly wearing the same tshirt also in the last picture)) it is possible Madeleine's trousers were changed if they were scuffed on the slip she made on the plane steps.

HiDeHo
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 2426
Reputation : 593
Join date : 2010-05-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by friedtomatoes on 24.04.12 20:29

@HiDeHo wrote:There are photos not released as well as the 150 black and white photos which I separated and numbered but have yet to identify most.

Title: B/W Photos Full Size in order (approx)
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Black-White-Photos/B-W-Photos-Full-Size-in-order-approx-1-1016542.html

Title: B/W Playground Photos
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Black-White-Photos/B-W-Playground-Photos-1-1016254.html



As far as the day the playground pics were taken.....if it was on Saturday (as some of the children seem to have the same clothing as the bus video as well as Gerry possibly wearing the same tshirt also in the last picture)) it is possible Madeleine's trousers were changed if they were scuffed on the slip she made on the plane steps.

But that is buying into the idea that they have lied about the Wednesday because Madeleine was dead by then, which begs the question of why would two nannies lie about seeing her on the Thursday.

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by HiDeHo on 24.04.12 20:36

@friedtomatoes wrote:
@HiDeHo wrote:There are photos not released as well as the 150 black and white photos which I separated and numbered but have yet to identify most.

Title: B/W Photos Full Size in order (approx)
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Black-White-Photos/B-W-Photos-Full-Size-in-order-approx-1-1016542.html

Title: B/W Playground Photos
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Black-White-Photos/B-W-Playground-Photos-1-1016254.html



As far as the day the playground pics were taken.....if it was on Saturday (as some of the children seem to have the same clothing as the bus video as well as Gerry possibly wearing the same tshirt also in the last picture)) it is possible Madeleine's trousers were changed if they were scuffed on the slip she made on the plane steps.

But that is buying into the idea that they have lied about the Wednesday because Madeleine was dead by then, which begs the question of why would two nannies lie about seeing her on the Thursday.



I have done extensive research into when Madeleine was last seen and the only specific 'sighting' of Madeleine is the cleaners daughter on Sunday afternoon.

Not ONE of any other witness statements is proof of seeing her. It doesn't prove she WASN'T 'around' during the holiday, but it doesn't prove she WAS. (imo)

Title: Who Saw Madeleine?- Credibility & Statement Highlights
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Discrepancies-by-Topic/Who-Saw-Madeleine-Credibility-Statement-Highlights-1-780252.html

HiDeHo
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 2426
Reputation : 593
Join date : 2010-05-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by friedtomatoes on 24.04.12 21:05

@HiDeHo wrote:
@friedtomatoes wrote:
@HiDeHo wrote:There are photos not released as well as the 150 black and white photos which I separated and numbered but have yet to identify most.

Title: B/W Photos Full Size in order (approx)
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Black-White-Photos/B-W-Photos-Full-Size-in-order-approx-1-1016542.html

Title: B/W Playground Photos
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Black-White-Photos/B-W-Playground-Photos-1-1016254.html



As far as the day the playground pics were taken.....if it was on Saturday (as some of the children seem to have the same clothing as the bus video as well as Gerry possibly wearing the same tshirt also in the last picture)) it is possible Madeleine's trousers were changed if they were scuffed on the slip she made on the plane steps.

But that is buying into the idea that they have lied about the Wednesday because Madeleine was dead by then, which begs the question of why would two nannies lie about seeing her on the Thursday.



I have done extensive research into when Madeleine was last seen and the only specific 'sighting' of Madeleine is the cleaners daughter on Sunday afternoon.

Not ONE of any other witness statements is proof of seeing her. It doesn't prove she WASN'T 'around' during the holiday, but it doesn't prove she WAS. (imo)

Title: Who Saw Madeleine?- Credibility & Statement Highlights
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Discrepancies-by-Topic/Who-Saw-Madeleine-Credibility-Statement-Highlights-1-780252.html

Thanks for that. I will have a read, though I do not understand why one witness is more credible than another. Charlotte Pennington stated she read a story to her on Thursday and Cat Baker relates how they went to the beach for a sailing trip on Thursday. Hmmmmm

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by tigger on 24.04.12 21:07

I'm not even sure about the Sunday when they were seen by the cleaner. Three children she saw and it's not clear that these were the McCann children.
a) they were walking without help, in fact carrying plates - the twins don't look entirely capable of that yet in most photographs
b) she commented on their cute shoes, all of them had shoes with little pink lights along the side. Never seen again on the twins - (see Maddie's Clothes) Twins are wearing different trainers 7-8 weeks later. No trainers on Maddie in the tennis photo.

They were probably all going upstairs to the Payne's apartment to have brunch/lunch?

As far as the nannies are concerned, they were in charge from time to time of a girl called Maddie. They never made any comment about the early photograph/poster which can not have resembled Maddie at all. We're also back to the thunderbolt eye, which one of the nannies said she'd never noticed.

I would doubt that whoever signed a child in or out, was checked by the Nanny, she'd be with her charges at the other end of the room? It was about a 1 to six ratio, takes all your attention. One leaves the group to go to Mummy/Daddy and that's it.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by sami on 24.04.12 21:28

friedtomatoes - I would be surprised if they did not try to establish when the photographs they were provided with were taken, in particular having regard to the doubt as to the source of the ones that were alleged to have been printed on the night she was reported missing.

I did not read about the policeman through conspiracy bloggers, it was through an article written by what has been, up to now anyway, a credible source. Indeed his name and police station to which he was attached were published. He appeared also in that photo with Neill Berry and the police dog. I was not aware it was a forum myth, I am surprised at that.

sami

Posts : 965
Reputation : 53
Join date : 2012-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by friedtomatoes on 24.04.12 21:35

@sami wrote:friedtomatoes - I would be surprised if they did not try to establish when the photographs they were provided with were taken, in particular having regard to the doubt as to the source of the ones that were alleged to have been printed on the night she was reported missing.

I did not read about the policeman through conspiracy bloggers, it was through an article written by what has been, up to now anyway, a credible source. Indeed his name and police station to which he was attached were published. He appeared also in that photo with Neill Berry and the police dog. I was not aware it was a forum myth, I am surprised at that.

Care to elaborate? My point about the photos being investigated time wise was merely about the PJ accepting the chikd was alive on Thursday.

friedtomatoes

Posts : 591
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by sami on 24.04.12 21:55

@friedtomatoes wrote:
@sami wrote:friedtomatoes - I would be surprised if they did not try to establish when the photographs they were provided with were taken, in particular having regard to the doubt as to the source of the ones that were alleged to have been printed on the night she was reported missing.

I did not read about the policeman through conspiracy bloggers, it was through an article written by what has been, up to now anyway, a credible source. Indeed his name and police station to which he was attached were published. He appeared also in that photo with Neill Berry and the police dog. I was not aware it was a forum myth, I am surprised at that.

Care to elaborate? My point about the photos being investigated time wise was merely about the PJ accepting the chikd was alive on Thursday.


Maybe I have misunderstood what you meant, but you said "The PJ were satisfied that Madeleine was seen alive late afternoon of
the 3rd May, they would not be trying to find out when certain pictures
were taken before that".

My point is I believe they did try to establish the timing of all of the photos they were provided with and that would include the playground one. Given the lack of confirmed sightings of her, the photographs would have been a useful tool for them, imo.

sami

Posts : 965
Reputation : 53
Join date : 2012-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by Guest on 24.04.12 22:08

Don't forget we have this, a picture of Madeleine allegedly taken on 3rd May handed in to police and K & G...

candyfloss wrote:We have the letter or email from Phil Edmonds who said he had a picture taken of Madeleine with his children on 3rd May, it is somewhere on this forum, so googled and found it on link below...

Philip Edmonds claimed that on 3 May 2007 Madeleine was captured on a photo, together with his three boys. Despite the immense value this might have had in settling arguments about Madeleine's movements on 3 May, neither he nor the McCanns ever produced it.

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/mccann-stella-and-one-of-her-major.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Wednesday 2nd of May

Post by tuom on 24.04.12 22:19

@HiDeHo wrote:There are photos not released as well as the 150 black and white photos which I separated and numbered but have yet to identify most.

Title: B/W Photos Full Size in order (approx)
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Black-White-Photos/B-W-Photos-Full-Size-in-order-approx-1-1016542.html

Title: B/W Playground Photos
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/Black-White-Photos/B-W-Playground-Photos-1-1016254.html



As far as the day the playground pics were taken.....if it was on Saturday (as some of the children seem to have the same clothing as the bus video as well as Gerry possibly wearing the same tshirt also in the last picture)) it is possible Madeleine's trousers were changed if they were scuffed on the slip she made on the plane steps.



Yes I think that could explain the change of trousers , if MMC hit her leg on the step it may have bled and soiled the pink pants so it would be normal to change it , however I notice that the sort of fleecy top Amelie (if it is her sitting next to KMC) in the bus is two toned , i.e body is green and sleeves a lighter colour maybe pink, I think I have seen a playground picture of MMC with that top on , there is another playground one with GMC in the picture too, I will try and find it , the child with the stripey top in the playground is not Amelie IMO but aam open to correction

tuom

Posts : 530
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-03-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum