The lady by the pool - states Madeleine and her son played together on 2nd May 2007

Well spotted Nina!

I would dearly love to be as excited at this news as everyone else, but I'm skeptical.

I'm not a gardener, but I've looked at information on bougainvillea. In the second screenshot of the four, I can clearly see bracts and a white flower.

Can somebody point out the proof that I am missing?

Khalgregar wrote:I would dearly love to be as excited at this news as everyone else, but I'm skeptical.

I'm not a gardener, but I've looked at information on bougainvillea. In the second screenshot of the four, I can clearly see bracts and a white flower.

Can somebody point out the proof that I am missing?

Actually Khalgregar the second photo isn't bougainvillea. It looks like my tobacco plants with the leaf shape.

Nina wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:I would dearly love to be as excited at this news as everyone else, but I'm skeptical.

I'm not a gardener, but I've looked at information on bougainvillea. In the second screenshot of the four, I can clearly see bracts and a white flower.

Can somebody point out the proof that I am missing?

Actually Khalgregar the second photo isn't bougainvillea. It looks like my tobacco plants with the leaf shape.

OK, so that is another type of plant which happens to have purple bracts and white flowers? (I am no expert!)

Khalgregar wrote:

Nina wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:I would dearly love to be as excited at this news as everyone else, but I'm skeptical.

I'm not a gardener, but I've looked at information on bougainvillea. In the second screenshot of the four, I can clearly see bracts and a white flower.

Can somebody point out the proof that I am missing?

Actually Khalgregar the second photo isn't bougainvillea. It looks like my tobacco plants with the leaf shape.

OK, so that is another type of plant which happens to have purple bracts and white flowers? (I am no expert!)

I am no expert either Khalgregar, just fortunate to be surrounded by the same plants.

Khalgregar wrote:I would dearly love to be as excited at this news as everyone else, but I'm skeptical.

I'm not a gardener, but I've looked at information on bougainvillea. In the second screenshot of the four, I can clearly see bracts and a white flower.

Can somebody point out the proof that I am missing?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Some stunning examples of bougainvillea in the site above, also wikipedia is an interesting ref.
The leaves of bv are glossy, compact, dark green and like elongated heart shapes, quite unlike the large floppy leaves in picture 2, with their rather crumpled, mid green, dullish finish.
Bougainvillea also has a thin branched, rather leafless, base leading up to a high head of flower. The picture 2 is a compact low level plant, mainly leaf with a small flowering at the top, definitely not bv.
Enjoy the vivacious colour. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Nina wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:

Nina wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:I would dearly love to be as excited at this news as everyone else, but I'm skeptical.

I'm not a gardener, but I've looked at information on bougainvillea. In the second screenshot of the four, I can clearly see bracts and a white flower.

Can somebody point out the proof that I am missing?

Actually Khalgregar the second photo isn't bougainvillea. It looks like my tobacco plants with the leaf shape.

OK, so that is another type of plant which happens to have purple bracts and white flowers? (I am no expert!)

I am no expert either Khalgregar, just fortunate to be surrounded by the same plants.

I would dearly love to be able to point at a piece of evidence that proves that the last photo was not taken on 3rd May, and therefore that the McCanns have lied and forged evidence. I would show it to everyone I know, and to all the authorities I could get hold of. But to do that, I need to be convinced that this evidence really does provide this proof.

I mean, if we're saying that the photo couldn't have been taken that week (not necessarily on the 3rd - date-stamps can easily be changed) because the bougainvillea hadn't flowered at that point, then surely the photo had to have been taken in a previous year. Which would mean that at the very least Amelie is photo-shopped into the picture.

So this proof has to concrete, and obvious.

bobbin wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:I would dearly love to be as excited at this news as everyone else, but I'm skeptical.

I'm not a gardener, but I've looked at information on bougainvillea. In the second screenshot of the four, I can clearly see bracts and a white flower.

Can somebody point out the proof that I am missing?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Some stunning examples of bougainvillea in the site above, also wikipedia is an interesting ref.
The leaves of bv are glossy, compact, dark green and like elongated heart shapes, quite unlike the large floppy leaves in picture 2, with their rather crumpled, mid green, dullish finish.
Bougainvillea also has a thin branched, rather leafless, base leading up to a high head of flower. The picture 2 is a compact low level plant, mainly leaf with a small flowering at the top, definitely not bv.
Enjoy the vivacious colour. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

They are very beautiful indeed

But where is the proof in the screenshots?* We can discount screenshot 2 entirely then I take it.

(*Like I said, I would dearly like proof, but I haven't seen anything convincing yet).

There is also the problem with Gerry looking as if he's stepped out of a sauna, tanned and sweating profusely on what appears to be a blazing hot day. This doesn't tally with the weather conditions at the time nor with how he looked soon after Madeleine was reported missing.

I've always thought that this photo could have been taken the previous summer. An early report said that the family had been to PDL before. If it really was taken on 3rd May 2007, why was it not produced for several weeks?

Khalgregar wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:I would dearly love to be as excited at this news as everyone else, but I'm skeptical.

I'm not a gardener, but I've looked at information on bougainvillea. In the second screenshot of the four, I can clearly see bracts and a white flower.

Can somebody point out the proof that I am missing?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Some stunning examples of bougainvillea in the site above, also wikipedia is an interesting ref.
The leaves of bv are glossy, compact, dark green and like elongated heart shapes, quite unlike the large floppy leaves in picture 2, with their rather crumpled, mid green, dullish finish.
Bougainvillea also has a thin branched, rather leafless, base leading up to a high head of flower. The picture 2 is a compact low level plant, mainly leaf with a small flowering at the top, definitely not bv.
Enjoy the vivacious colour. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

They are very beautiful indeed [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

But where is the proof in the screenshots?* We can discount screenshot 2 entirely then I take it.

(*Like I said, I would dearly like proof, but I haven't seen anything convincing yet).

Fine, you'll see it the way you see it and you will not be able to convince anyone who has got their eyes open that the flowers they see behind Gerry on 3rd May pool photo can have defied all of the laws of nature and grown backwards to be the flowerless plants that are seen behind Neil Berry one day later.
The statement being made is that Gerry McCann is lying when he says the pool photo is taken of Maddie, Amelie and himself on 3 May 2007.
Spin as much as you like, the flowers on the 4th May 2007 are not yet in bloom, yet Gerry would have us believe that on 3rd they are in full magnificent bloom. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:There is also the problem with Gerry looking as if he's stepped out of a sauna, tanned and sweating profusely on what appears to be a blazing hot day. This doesn't tally with the weather conditions at the time nor with how he looked soon after Madeleine was reported missing.

I've always thought that this photo could have been taken the previous summer. An early report said that the family had been to PDL before. If it really was taken on 3rd May 2007, why was it not produced for several weeks?

I'm comparing the 'tan' on Gerry's face in the photo allegedly taken on the 3rd, against one taken on the 4th where G and K are on their way to the police station.

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

Does he really look that different?

Khalgregar wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:There is also the problem with Gerry looking as if he's stepped out of a sauna, tanned and sweating profusely on what appears to be a blazing hot day. This doesn't tally with the weather conditions at the time nor with how he looked soon after Madeleine was reported missing.

I've always thought that this photo could have been taken the previous summer. An early report said that the family had been to PDL before. If it really was taken on 3rd May 2007, why was it not produced for several weeks?

I'm comparing the 'tan' on Gerry's face in the photo allegedly taken on the 3rd, against one taken on the 4th where G and K are on their way to the police station.

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

Does he really look that different?

yes, particularly the hands which are very white here.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:An early report said that the family had been to PDL before.

Is there a link to this report?

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:If it really was taken on 3rd May 2007, why was it not produced for several weeks?

My theory is that the photo was taken earlier in the week, but they needed to provide evidence that Madeleine was alive on 3rd May. This narrowed down the focus of the investigation to start from the time this photo was allegedly taken. The date-stamp of the photograph could have been changed on Gerry's trip back to England. And magically, the police were no longer focusing on the events of the 2nd May, a day which none of the Tapas 9 seemed to want to talk about at all.

Of course, if the bougainvillea hadn't flowered at that time, then my theory is blown out of the water

bobbin wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:There is also the problem with Gerry looking as if he's stepped out of a sauna, tanned and sweating profusely on what appears to be a blazing hot day. This doesn't tally with the weather conditions at the time nor with how he looked soon after Madeleine was reported missing.

I've always thought that this photo could have been taken the previous summer. An early report said that the family had been to PDL before. If it really was taken on 3rd May 2007, why was it not produced for several weeks?

I'm comparing the 'tan' on Gerry's face in the photo allegedly taken on the 3rd, against one taken on the 4th where G and K are on their way to the police station.

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

Does he really look that different?

yes, particularly the hands which are very white here.

The sun is shining on them. In my opinion, he looks no different to how he looks in the last photo.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:There is also the problem with Gerry looking as if he's stepped out of a sauna, tanned and sweating profusely on what appears to be a blazing hot day. This doesn't tally with the weather conditions at the time nor with how he looked soon after Madeleine was reported missing.

I've always thought that this photo could have been taken the previous summer. An early report said that the family had been to PDL before. If it really was taken on 3rd May 2007, why was it not produced for several weeks?

I think the photo was taken of Gerry and Amelie later than the 3rd May, when the flowers were out and that Madeleine, a younger Madeleine from a previous time was photoshopped into the final released to the public photo. The correct place, by the pool, but not the 3rd May in my very humble opinion.

bobbin wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:I would dearly love to be as excited at this news as everyone else, but I'm skeptical.

I'm not a gardener, but I've looked at information on bougainvillea. In the second screenshot of the four, I can clearly see bracts and a white flower.

Can somebody point out the proof that I am missing?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Some stunning examples of bougainvillea in the site above, also wikipedia is an interesting ref.
The leaves of bv are glossy, compact, dark green and like elongated heart shapes, quite unlike the large floppy leaves in picture 2, with their rather crumpled, mid green, dullish finish.
Bougainvillea also has a thin branched, rather leafless, base leading up to a high head of flower. The picture 2 is a compact low level plant, mainly leaf with a small flowering at the top, definitely not bv.
Enjoy the vivacious colour. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

They are very beautiful indeed [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

But where is the proof in the screenshots?* We can discount screenshot 2 entirely then I take it.

(*Like I said, I would dearly like proof, but I haven't seen anything convincing yet).

Fine, you'll see it the way you see it and you will not be able to convince anyone who has got their eyes open that the flowers they see behind Gerry on 3rd May pool photo can have defied all of the laws of nature and grown backwards to be the flowerless plants that are seen behind Neil Berry one day later.
The statement being made is that Gerry McCann is lying when he says the pool photo is taken of Maddie, Amelie and himself on 3 May 2007.
Spin as much as you like, the flowers on the 4th May 2007 are not yet in bloom, yet Gerry would have us believe that on 3rd they are in full magnificent bloom. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Can we confirm that the plants in the last photo and the plants in the picture of Neil Berry are the same ones?

Khalgregar wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:There is also the problem with Gerry looking as if he's stepped out of a sauna, tanned and sweating profusely on what appears to be a blazing hot day. This doesn't tally with the weather conditions at the time nor with how he looked soon after Madeleine was reported missing.

I've always thought that this photo could have been taken the previous summer. An early report said that the family had been to PDL before. If it really was taken on 3rd May 2007, why was it not produced for several weeks?

I'm comparing the 'tan' on Gerry's face in the photo allegedly taken on the 3rd, against one taken on the 4th where G and K are on their way to the police station.

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

Does he really look that different?

yes, particularly the hands which are very white here.

The sun is shining on them. In my opinion, he looks no different to how he looks in the last photo.

Clever bit of sun isn't it, shining on his hands to make them white but not shining onto his face to make that white. Any redness in his face looks like bloating and tiredness, with his lower cheeks and chin quite white. How come the sun shining on him in the pool photo doesn't also make his hands look white because in the pool picture they are a pinky tan. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

bobbin wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:There is also the problem with Gerry looking as if he's stepped out of a sauna, tanned and sweating profusely on what appears to be a blazing hot day. This doesn't tally with the weather conditions at the time nor with how he looked soon after Madeleine was reported missing.

I've always thought that this photo could have been taken the previous summer. An early report said that the family had been to PDL before. If it really was taken on 3rd May 2007, why was it not produced for several weeks?

I'm comparing the 'tan' on Gerry's face in the photo allegedly taken on the 3rd, against one taken on the 4th where G and K are on their way to the police station.

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

Does he really look that different?

yes, particularly the hands which are very white here.

The sun is shining on them. In my opinion, he looks no different to how he looks in the last photo.

Clever bit of sun isn't it, shining on his hands to make them white but not shining onto his face to make that white. Any redness in his face looks like bloating and tiredness, with his lower cheeks and chin quite white. How come the sun shining on him in the pool photo doesn't also make his hands look white because in the pool picture they are a pinky tan. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

There is also another clever bit of sun which is shining on his grey top (e.g. at the back of his neck) making it look sparkling white.

We will see what we want to see. But this kind of subjective evidence is no grounds for declaring the last photo to be taken in a previous year.

Khalgregar wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:I would dearly love to be as excited at this news as everyone else, but I'm skeptical.

I'm not a gardener, but I've looked at information on bougainvillea. In the second screenshot of the four, I can clearly see bracts and a white flower.

Can somebody point out the proof that I am missing?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Some stunning examples of bougainvillea in the site above, also wikipedia is an interesting ref.
The leaves of bv are glossy, compact, dark green and like elongated heart shapes, quite unlike the large floppy leaves in picture 2, with their rather crumpled, mid green, dullish finish.
Bougainvillea also has a thin branched, rather leafless, base leading up to a high head of flower. The picture 2 is a compact low level plant, mainly leaf with a small flowering at the top, definitely not bv.
Enjoy the vivacious colour. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

They are very beautiful indeed [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

But where is the proof in the screenshots?* We can discount screenshot 2 entirely then I take it.

(*Like I said, I would dearly like proof, but I haven't seen anything convincing yet).

Fine, you'll see it the way you see it and you will not be able to convince anyone who has got their eyes open that the flowers they see behind Gerry on 3rd May pool photo can have defied all of the laws of nature and grown backwards to be the flowerless plants that are seen behind Neil Berry one day later.
The statement being made is that Gerry McCann is lying when he says the pool photo is taken of Maddie, Amelie and himself on 3 May 2007.
Spin as much as you like, the flowers on the 4th May 2007 are not yet in bloom, yet Gerry would have us believe that on 3rd they are in full magnificent bloom. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Can we confirm that the plants in the last photo and the plants in the picture of Neil Berry are the same ones?

I don't know about you but I can.
Look at the pool and the walls and the plants and do the geometry to get your perspective.
In such a local area, the plants will not be in full bloom in one area and not even starting to show flower, the day after, when a couple of meters away.

bobbin wrote:I don't know about you but I can.
Look at the pool and the walls and the plants and do the geometry to get your perspective.
In such a local area, the plants will not be in full bloom in one area and not even starting to show flower, the day after, when a couple of meters away.

I've done the geometry, and the background of the Neil Berry shot is not the same. I've looked on Google Maps, and I can place the location of the 'last photo' down to within a couple of feet error. I can't place the Neil Berry shot at all. The stone walls don't look like anything I can find in the Ocean Club. There, the walls are painted white.

Nevertheless, I'd agree that the same type of plants should be flowering at roughly the same time in a local area. Are the plants in the Neil Berry shot bougainvillea?

Khalgregar - I posted a link to the "been there before" story about two years ago and it's now impossible to find it; most likely it's been whooshed anyway.

All I can remember is that Kate was quoted as saying that she felt safe in leaving the children because she'd been to PDL before.

It could of course be a mistake - certainly wouldn't be the first or last incorrect statement in the press - but it also wouldn't be the first or last time either that an early report was quickly removed when it was found not to tally with the official version of an event.

I have been trying to account for
apparent differences in what happened on the day that the article seems
to suggest is May 2nd..Because the lady says 'it was the day before she disappeared', I assumed it was the 2nd of May.But have I got it wrong somewhere? I can't work out when this happened.Can anyone help? I've looked at the tennis sheets, creche records and Kate's book and I can't fit it with this lady's version...

Information from the article;

''The day before she disappeared,Maddie spent an idyllic afternoon playing in the sun...

...Maddie was wearing a little pink top and blue skirt
She and Louie were kicking a football around the play area for about an hour
Maddie's mum Kate,38,relaxed on a sun lounger and watched her daughter whizzing down the water slide
Maddie's dad Gerry,38, was playing tennis on a nearby court at the time, and
after the match he joined Kate and put his arm around her.''

Compare this with Kate's account of May 2nd (snipped)

''Today
it rained.The children went to their clubs,but our tennis lessons were
postponed.Instead we joined Fiona, David and Dianne at the Millenium
restaurant for coffee. We then returned to our apartment and a little
while later I left again,to go for a run with Matt...

Gerry and 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:Gerry's group
first,
followed by mine.After that it was the usual routine:tea with
the children, playtime, bathtime, milk, stories, kids’ bedtime''


Wednesday 2nd May tennis booking court one
adult classic 1 9-10 (rain)
10-11 adult classic 2 (rain)


tennis does not begin again until 2.30. Weinberger is on court two at 2.30.

2.30-3.30 adult classic 2
3.30-4.30 adult classic one


Wed 2nd may CRECHE RECORDS
Madeleine signed in at 2.45. by Kate, out at 5.30 by Kate
Twins signed in at 2.40 by Kate, signed out at 5.20 by Gerry

So
is the article really about May 2nd? Because I don't understand how
Kate is described as watching Maddie 'whizz down the water slide' while Gerry is
playing tennis. If Madeleine is playing, where are the twins? Because
the creche records show them being checked in only 5 minutes before
Madeleine! I'm SOOOOOOOOOOO confused!

From: McCannfiles.com.
By Dr Martin Roberts
17 April 2013

THE LONELINESS OF THE LONG DISTANCE RUNNER

It's no fun being a 'Billy no mates,' especially on holiday. Much better to be sociable and go jogging in company, if that's your thing. It wasn't really Matthew Oldfield's thing though:

"I don't like it, but I quite like it on holiday when it's a bit warmer and it's not so bad on your joints and I quite like running on the beach, because it feels quite sort of Bay Watch and it's kind of Californian." He said, to the interviewing police officer.

Unfortunately for Matthew he drew the short straw. Instead of having Pamela Anderson for company that Wednesday, 2 May, he got Kate McCann:

"Today it rained. The children went to their clubs, but our tennis lessons were postponed. Instead we joined Fiona, David and Dianne at the Millennium restaurant for coffee. We then returned to our apartment and a little while later I left again, to go for a run with Matt." (Kate McCann, in 'Madeleine')

Whose idea was it anyway? Matthew's, the reluctant athlete, who doesn't even like running, much less on the roads and in the rain, or the enthusiastic Kate McCann's? Matthew could not so much as remember who took the initiative:

"...I think Kate might have run most days, because she was quite a keen runner, and it may just be that either I thought I'd go for a run and she was already changed, or I was changed and, or Gerry might have said that, erm, I'm speculating, it may just have been coincidence that we both got into running gear and then decided to run together."

Somehow a 'your guess is as good as mine' answer during a police interview doesn't seem terribly convincing, and even though it appears perfectly reasonable to suppose Kate took the lead on this occasion, there must have been more than an element of chance in their running together. They didn't just bump into each other outside at the Ocean club, both coincidentally changed into running gear. If, as Kate tells us, she returned to her apartment and a little while later left again, to go for a run with Matt, the expedition must have been pre-arranged.

So there is Matthew Oldfield in his running strip, prepared to do something he's not desperately keen on, unless it's on the beach and in the sunshine, about to pound the roads that lunchtime:

"I remember I went running with Kate at lunchtime, she's quite a good runner, and we went out on the road all the way up to the main junc... erm, the sort of main road where you access Praia da Luz from and then back."

It wasn't a comfortable experience for our Matthew (4078 "But you went on this route and are saying you found it quite hard to keep up?") but Kate must have revelled in it, having already softened the glare from her new girly pink trainers with several outings in the PDL sand.

Raised paving stones and pot-holes are like snipers lying in wait for a victim when you're training out on the road. Kate was hit by an anti-personnel device in the form of a dog, apparently.

"As we ran along the promenade, a small dog jumped out from under a bench and attacked my right calf. It was pretty sore and I was a bit shaken, but I carried on as coolly as I could manage."

Funny how Matthew did not recollect this incident during his rogatory interview, Kate having been 'a bit shaken' by it after all. Might that be because he and Kate went running in different directions, and at different times of the day, Kate along the promenade in the morning, before lunch, Matthew away from PDL and back at lunchtime, three to four miles each way? Matthew could of course have kicked off with the beach leg of the route, but then he'd surely have remembered their joint encounter with the dog, even if only by being grateful that it was Kate's leg that was sore after the 'attack' and not his own!

Hospital patients of Matthew Oldfield should breathe a sigh of relief that medical histories/charts are available at the foot of their beds. Trusting in Dr Oldfield's memory could prove disastrous otherwise. He appears not to have one:

4078 "Okay. Right. So, I mean, having said that you had struggled to remember what you did each day, you have done pretty well really so far, you have remembered, for example, that Rachael was unwell all day on the Wednesday, so therefore you had gone for a run with Kate. I am guessing, would that have been when Grace was asleep or?"

Reply "I think that was lunchtime."

4078 "Yeah. Do you remember what you did after your run with Kate?"

Reply "No, because I'd have been on, I'd have been on Grace duty I think that afternoon... (waffle, waffle).

Well we know doctors are accustomed to schedules, but Matthew Oldfield's readiness to keep pace with Kate McCann in this instance is seriously impressive. Three to four miles each way, squeezed into a lunchtime outing on account of a sick wife and a child needing care and supervision back home. ("Grace had loose nappies nearly every day, but until after Madeleine went, erm, disappeared, she was never sick." Is that 'went on her abduction,' Matthew?).

A total of some seven miles, say, plus the time it will have taken for Oldfield to change into, and afterwards out of, his athletic strip. Roger Bannister was himself a medic but I don't think that can be taken to imply that non-runner Dr Matthew Oldfield could get remotely close to the four minute mile, then or now.

And that dog he remembered nothing about. The one that attacked poor Kate from beneath a public bench. Did it leave a mark of any kind? It's hard to see quite why Kate should have been shaken by the experience, and sore, otherwise. It was only a small dog after all. A small creature with teeth and claws that, from a prone position, launched an assault on Kate's anatomy, just a foot or so from the floor. Perhaps, seeing the flailing legs, the dog took it to be an act of self-defence.
unquote

Khalgregar wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Khalgregar wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:There is also the problem with Gerry looking as if he's stepped out of a sauna, tanned and sweating profusely on what appears to be a blazing hot day. This doesn't tally with the weather conditions at the time nor with how he looked soon after Madeleine was reported missing.

I've always thought that this photo could have been taken the previous summer. An early report said that the family had been to PDL before. If it really was taken on 3rd May 2007, why was it not produced for several weeks?

I'm comparing the 'tan' on Gerry's face in the photo allegedly taken on the 3rd, against one taken on the 4th where G and K are on their way to the police station.

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

Does he really look that different?

yes, particularly the hands which are very white here.

The sun is shining on them. In my opinion, he looks no different to how he looks in the last photo.

Clever bit of sun isn't it, shining on his hands to make them white but not shining onto his face to make that white. Any redness in his face looks like bloating and tiredness, with his lower cheeks and chin quite white. How come the sun shining on him in the pool photo doesn't also make his hands look white because in the pool picture they are a pinky tan. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

There is also another clever bit of sun which is shining on his grey top (e.g. at the back of his neck) making it look sparkling white.

We will see what we want to see. But this kind of subjective evidence is no grounds for declaring the last photo to be taken in a previous year.

Indeed it isn't. But as the week of the holiday was generally cold and we can see that even on the 4th they were wearing UK high summer gear (i.e. fleece jackets zipped right up) taken in conjunction with the flowering shrubs not being evident on the 4th, that the photograph of Gerry at the pool was taken sometime later.
After the 3rd but before his trip to the UK around the 20th. Imo both girls are pasted in as the saturation test showed remaining colours of both their garments when all the rest was reduced to greyscale.

By Dr Martin Roberts
05 August 2011

THIRTY DAYS

Thirty days hath September, April, June and November. The rest have thirty-one (except for May which, in 2007, was short by one Wednesday).

"Wednesday, 2 May, 2007. Our last completely happy day. Our last, to date, as a family of five." (Kate McCann in 'Madeleine' p.59).

Ripe for recollection, this particular Wednesday in May ought to feature conspicuously in the McCanns' various accounts of the truth, yet it does not; even in Kate McCann's recently published attempt at putting the record straight. Although the nocturnal shenanigans are ritually described, references to the diurnal aspect of that 'last completely happy (family) day' are conspicuous only by their near absence. The sentence quoted above is followed by two short paragraphs. And that's it. Heralded as a major event, Wednesday 2 May proves, in fact, to be something of a non-event.

O.K., so it rained. It's still possible to have family fun indoors, even in a small holiday apartment. Unless of course you are desperate to off-load the children so you can show off your new pink trainers down at the beach again with Matt, running the gauntlet of small dogs. That must have been a long run, taking up most of the morning, as the next thing that happens is "Gerry and 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." (p.60). Tennis was rescheduled. "After that it was the usual routine: tea with the children, playtime, bath time, milk, stories, kids' bedtime, get ready, Tapas at 8.30 p.m."

And that, dear reader, is the extent of the family experience on Wednesday 2 May.

Some might consider an interval of several years adequate justification for poor recall, but such justification cannot apply to an interval of only one week! Here's what Gerry McCann had to say to Portuguese investigators on 10 May, 2007. Notice how Wednesday daytime fails to merit a mention:

"Concerning the routine, on Tuesday there was a slight change given that after lunch, at 13H30, the deponent and KATE decided to take the three children to Praia da Luz, having gone on foot, taking only the twins in baby buggies. They all left by the main door because of the buggies, went around to the right, down the street of the "BATISTA" supermarket and went to the beach along a road directly ahead.

"They were at the beach for about 20 minutes...

"On the day that MADELEINE disappeared, Thursday, 3 May 2007, they all woke up at the same time, between 07H30 and 08H00. When they were having breakfast, MADELEINE addressed her mother and asked her "why didn't you come last night when SEAN and I were crying?"

"On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, apart from the deponent and his wife, he thinks that DAVID PAYNE also went to his apartment to check that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children...

"He cannot say exactly, but he thinks that on Monday or Tuesday MADELEINE had slept for some time in his bedroom, with KATE, as she had told him that one or both twins were crying, making much noise.

"Back to Thursday..."

Back to Thursday. Without ever having visited Wednesday, either on the 10th or the week previously (the 4th), although Kate manages to mention it, just, during her earliest interview:

"Apart from that, on Wednesday or Thursday, Madeleine and the other children went sailing at the beach, five minutes away from the club, for an hour, in an event that was organised by the resort. The surveillance of this activity and the organisation were done by the club, and the deponent was not present, nor was her husband."

Not only are Wednesday and Thursday evidently interchangeable but, in terms of Madeleine's known whereabouts, that was a matter for resort staff, as neither Kate nor Gerry was present during the organised activity. (Gerry makes a comparable observation in his own 4 May statement).

The McCanns' 'last completely happy day' appears to have been dropped from the calendar, whilst confirmation of Madeleine's presence rests squarely with Mark Warner nannies. There are the creche registers of course (well, they exist at least), and the occasional 'sightings' by third parties.

According to Nanny Cat Baker's 10 May responses to Portuguese police inquiries, Madeleine should have been with her at the beach on Tuesday, Wednesday [15.30 - 16.30] AND Thursday [10.00 - 11.00] when she had a boat trip - at the same time as Jane Tanner is supposed, by Rachael Oldfield, to have taken her photograph while engaged in mini-tennis - which she did not do according to Russell O'Brien.

But we are more concerned with the Wednesday. As was Dianne Webster:

4078 "When was the last time you saw Madeleine?"
Reply "(Sighs) You see I don't remember seeing her on the Thursday because I didn't go to the high tea, err but I was apparently in the play area afterwards but I can't recall that."
4078 "Okay."
Reply "Err so from what I can recall, the last time I would have seen Madeleine would have been the Wednesday at the high tea probably."

Use of the conditional + 'probably' does not mean it happened. For all we know the witness may even have partaken of 'probably the best lager in the world' (instead of high tea).

As far as the McCanns were concerned, May 2007 consisted of thirty recorded days. But surely even two paragraphs from Kate justify recognising the full thirty-one? Well, if you insist. But, in terms of diurnal activity, the result is the same. Monday isn't accounted for either - neither in their statements, nor the book.

Between two deleted days therefore we have a duplicate visit to the beach and, from Wednesday evening through Thursday, a succession of questionable 'checks' and 'sightings.' It's just as well we have the handful of photographs taken in Praia da Luz, including the 'last' one, or we might be tempted to question whether Madeleine was seen at all that week by anyone except her parents.
unquote