Police to review evidence collected from apt 5a

Atomic Peanut wrote:Is M's hat in the tennis balls pic the same hat that Amelie was wearing in the last photo?

Hicks wrote:Nina, that is an excellent point. That hat looks very flimsy, it would not sit neatly tucked back like that with Madeleine running around and bending down. I am beginning to think that the head has been pasted on.

The clip of GM laughing and joking, caught unaware a few days after his daughter went missing is something that always comes to mind.
At times during interviews we see how they both try to suppress a smirk, a laugh. Especially telling is the one where GM is asked what his feelings are when other people think that have seen his daughter. His grin gives a chill.

Then there's the GNR statement from that evening. The McCann's pretending to cry, 'making noises like crying but no tears'. Acting, quite badly it seems.

Sorry to go off topic, it's just that I sometimes wonder if, along with these photo's, the whole thing is one big hoax. 
 
The dogs went into 5a months after the event. Would it be possible that the scent of death was somehow transferred there after the 3rd May? Perhaps by a policeman? there were plenty going in and out. I'm not trying to rubbish the dogs, just wondering if it would be possible.

Sometimes I wonder if Perhaps Madeleine was indeed in that taxi.

Joss wrote:

Hicks wrote:

Atomic Peanut wrote:OK Hicks, thank you
Here's another... in the tennis balls pic, why are her arms brown (tanned) but her hands white, with a sharp line separating the two?
This effect can only be achieved in reality by wearing gloves most of the time!

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

Kate McCann's witness statement 4th May, concerning Madeleine.......'she is Caucasian, with quite white skin, aged four, about 90cm tall. Of slim build, dark blond hair, straight and of shoulder length. Left eye blue-green, right eye  also green with a BROWN SPOT on the pupil. She had a small brown spot on the skin of her left leg, as well as a SMALL SUNBURN on her right forearm'

How was it possible to get a 'small sunburn' on her right forearm? It doesn't look like sunburn to me.


When you magnify the photo you could be forgiven for wondering if the head has been pasted on to the body.

Madeleine spent most of the day in the creche, and the weather seemed to be hit and miss. 
The fact that Kate pointed out the localised redness on Madeleine's forearm must have some significance. It is odd the line around the wrist.

Photoshopped???

Ladyinred wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:

Varriott wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:

Ok that must be another theory ...so that theory is that the McCanns turned up at the creche for Madeleine's age group, 4 times  that day with no child and just signed the name Madeleine in and out, morning and afternoon and nobody noticed? Again it is a crazy risk to take because the risk of anybody noticing that Madeleine isn't with them at any point, during the 4 journeys to and from creche, at the creche sign in, and if/when the staff do a head count, (particularly if there was a boat trip etc.) immediately puts the focus on the McCanns. I think, like the theory of Gerry carrying a decoy child through Luz that night, it's an unnecessary risk to take when you don't have to and when the risk of being revealed immediately puts you in the spotlight. I can't imagine anyone, let alone someone as controlling as Gerry appears to be, taking a risk that leaves too many variables that he has no control over. It's just too big  a risk to take when you think what the fallout would be if anybody noticed their deception.

By the standards of 'It's just too big a risk to take' one can easily rule out both a staged abduction and a stranger abduction.  But, clearly, one of these two things happened.  It is not up to us, or to the police, to speculate on which is more feasible.  We are entitled to our opinions, but it's a question of where the evidence points.

Yup we are all entitled to our opinions and we are all speculating on how feasible various scenarios are. I can't see any evidence pointing towards Madeleine not being there at all that day and common sense says the Mccanns wouldn't take additional unnecessary risks, when, like you say, they would already have been taking  a big enough risk if they were going to stage an abduction. 


If Madeleine had died and the McCanns wanted to hide that then the staging and/or disposal of her body would be a necessary risk they would HAVE to take . It's unavoidable. The risk is worth the "reward" . All this other stuff about signing in/out an imaginary child 4 times and hoping nobody notices, isn't necessary and just increases the risk of being found out. Each time they make that journey and sign her name without her there is another chance that somebody is going to find out she isn't around. So it's taking additional risks for no additional reward and  each additional risk would be another chance of them being found out and becoming prime suspects in their daughter's disappearance. Nah, they're not stupid.

I haven't read anywhere about the signing in/out of an imaginary child.  What I have read is the theory that GM signed in two children,
EN and the other MR, her friend, substituted for MBM.
See Creche Enquiry and Creche Records threads:

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

aquila wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:

I personally think the whole photo discussions are little more than red herrings but let's be honest nobody can say what the weather was like all day on any one day. Weather is changeable. On just one day I can walk out my front door and it's nice and warm, walk to the shops where it's more open and there's a cold breeze, walk back and it's raining. A photo just captures a single moment in time.

I stay well clear of photo threads as I don't understand photography. I tend to agree with you Stillthinking, having lived in a med country (Portugal is not in the Med...groan) but I could leave my front door exposed to the wind and the elements and feel freezing. I could nip around the back of my house and sit in a sun spot, sheltered from the winds.

However, I need to point out that those tall palm trees in the Ocean Club complex would have been swooshing away regardless of a 'sun trap'. Those big angels wouldn't have sat still in the slightest breeze and this is the dilemma. The photograph taken 'at that moment' was it taken just as the breeze had died down?

What I'm trying to say so ineffectually is that from what I can see of the Ocean Club pool area set-up it's not a little sun-trap regardless of a few buildings sheltering the pools.

I hope this makes sense.

Stillthinking wrote:

aquila wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:

I personally think the whole photo discussions are little more than red herrings but let's be honest nobody can say what the weather was like all day on any one day. Weather is changeable. On just one day I can walk out my front door and it's nice and warm, walk to the shops where it's more open and there's a cold breeze, walk back and it's raining. A photo just captures a single moment in time.

I stay well clear of photo threads as I don't understand photography. I tend to agree with you Stillthinking, having lived in a med country (Portugal is not in the Med...groan) but I could leave my front door exposed to the wind and the elements and feel freezing. I could nip around the back of my house and sit in a sun spot, sheltered from the winds.

However, I need to point out that those tall palm trees in the Ocean Club complex would have been swooshing away regardless of a 'sun trap'. Those big angels wouldn't have sat still in the slightest breeze and this is the dilemma. The photograph taken 'at that moment' was it taken just as the breeze had died down?

What I'm trying to say so ineffectually is that from what I can see of the Ocean Club pool area set-up it's not a little sun-trap regardless of a few buildings sheltering the pools.

I hope this makes sense.

Hi, I understand what you're saying, I just think that yes it's possible the pic was taken at  a moment in time where it wasn't particularly windy. 

With the photo threads in general I think if we looked hard enough at any old photo, particularly digital ones which seem to sometimes distort, we'd start seeing things that looked strange. We just don't normally look that hard at photos.

Ladyinred wrote:@ stillthinking at 12.37 pm

I agree it's an incredible scenario, a substitute child attending creche.  However, much of this case is 'out there', beyond most of our collective experiences.
If anyone is stupid enough to stage a hoaxed abduction of their own child then they are capable of deception at a creche.
Have you considered why Gerry McCann signed in another child?
The creche records are a mess.  All IMO.

Joss wrote:

Hicks wrote:

Atomic Peanut wrote:OK Hicks, thank you
Here's another... in the tennis balls pic, why are her arms brown (tanned) but her hands white, with a sharp line separating the two?
This effect can only be achieved in reality by wearing gloves most of the time!

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

Kate McCann's witness statement 4th May, concerning Madeleine.......'she is Caucasian, with quite white skin, aged four, about 90cm tall. Of slim build, dark blond hair, straight and of shoulder length. Left eye blue-green, right eye  also green with a BROWN SPOT on the pupil. She had a small brown spot on the skin of her left leg, as well as a SMALL SUNBURN on her right forearm'

How was it possible to get a 'small sunburn' on her right forearm? It doesn't look like sunburn to me.


When you magnify the photo you could be forgiven for wondering if the head has been pasted on to the body.

Madeleine spent most of the day in the creche, and the weather seemed to be hit and miss. 
The fact that Kate pointed out the localised redness on Madeleine's forearm must have some significance. It is odd the line around the wrist.

Photoshopped???

Snifferdog wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:

Hi, I understand what you're saying, I just think that yes it's possible the pic was taken at  a moment in time where it wasn't particularly windy. 

With the photo threads in general I think if we looked hard enough at any old photo, particularly digital ones which seem to sometimes distort, we'd start seeing things that looked strange. We just don't normally look that hard at photos.

I look hard at photos, and I have never before observed distortions as I have seen in Maddies photos. The parts of a person always looks larger, the closer to the camera they were when taken. Such odd distortions as suddenly growing a hunch back - as in the tennis ball photo - is one example I have never seen before. Imo the photos of Maddie are composed of images pasted together to form "different looking Maddies", to confuse the public and police, as to what she looks like, for their own "reasons" imo.

Stillthinking wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:

Hi, I understand what you're saying, I just think that yes it's possible the pic was taken at  a moment in time where it wasn't particularly windy. 

With the photo threads in general I think if we looked hard enough at any old photo, particularly digital ones which seem to sometimes distort, we'd start seeing things that looked strange. We just don't normally look that hard at photos.

I look hard at photos, and I have never before observed distortions as I have seen in Maddies photos. The parts of a person always looks larger, the closer to the camera they were when taken. Such odd distortions as suddenly growing a hunch back - as in the tennis ball photo - is one example I have never seen before. Imo the photos of Maddie are composed of images pasted together to form "different looking Maddies", to confuse the public and police, as to what she looks like, for their own "reasons" imo.

"Growing a hunch back" or hunching her shoulders a little because she's holding a load of tennis balls and almost cuddling into them?

I think the analysis of the last photo started off as a wind up mission by a "character" on the Mirror forum, I bet they're chuckling away at the fact that their legacy lives on to this day.

NickE wrote:

Atomic Peanut wrote:Is M's hat in the tennis balls pic the same hat that Amelie was wearing in the last photo?

It looks absolutely like it's the same hat.
Anyone know what happened to the hat that Madeleine was wearing in the "last photo"?

PeterMac wrote:

Atomic Peanut wrote:

NickE wrote:

Atomic Peanut wrote:Is M's hat in the tennis balls pic the same hat that Amelie was wearing in the last photo?

It looks absolutely like it's the same hat.
Anyone know what happened to the hat that Madeleine was wearing in the "last photo"?

Why weren't there any hats, including the pink one, in the PJ list of clothes at the villa?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Perhaps it DID blow away in the Force 4-5 Stiff breeze ! ! !

bobbin wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:

Hi, I understand what you're saying, I just think that yes it's possible the pic was taken at  a moment in time where it wasn't particularly windy. 

With the photo threads in general I think if we looked hard enough at any old photo, particularly digital ones which seem to sometimes distort, we'd start seeing things that looked strange. We just don't normally look that hard at photos.

I look hard at photos, and I have never before observed distortions as I have seen in Maddies photos. The parts of a person always looks larger, the closer to the camera they were when taken. Such odd distortions as suddenly growing a hunch back - as in the tennis ball photo - is one example I have never seen before. Imo the photos of Maddie are composed of images pasted together to form "different looking Maddies", to confuse the public and police, as to what she looks like, for their own "reasons" imo.

"Growing a hunch back" or hunching her shoulders a little because she's holding a load of tennis balls and almost cuddling into them?

I think the analysis of the last photo started off as a wind up mission by a "character" on the Mirror forum, I bet they're chuckling away at the fact that their legacy lives on to this day.

So you make an assumption that nothing has been photo-shopped and that someone started a joke, and is laughing still at the 'impossible reflection in Gerry's sunglasses' ?
How would you explain that 90 degree flip through of reflection if there has been no photo-shopping.

Snifferdog wrote:Actually I am very familiar with the shape of the human form by the nature of my work.

In this photo Maddies shoulder blade is to low and bulging for her size, and cannot be explained away by her hugging the tennis balls into her chest.

Not only is Maddie sporting a hunch back which is absent from her other photos, but her neck in this photo would be as thick as a tree trunk were one to follow the natural curve of its lines.

I couldn't give a continental what ex mirror forum members, or anyone else, may find amusing about these imo obvious forgeries, or not.

Snifferdog wrote:@Stillthinking: I agree that it is the case that there are those who are articulate, and others who are not. Some people are natural born leaders, others are not. We all have different talents, and no one should be penalized for it.

That's just the way of the world - but this shouldn't make any poster feel that they are at a disadvantage, because its not just how you phrase it, but most importantly, the message that's contained therein.

Ultimately, most who are able to read and post here, are at liberty to decide for themselves who they wish to believe, debate, follow, or "lead", as you put it.

Discussing the photos is relevant to "discussing the case". Amo.

Stillthinking wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:@Stillthinking: I agree that it is the case that there are those who are articulate, and others who are not. Some people are natural born leaders, others are not. We all have different talents, and no one should be penalized for it.

That's just the way of the world - but this shouldn't make any poster feel that they are at a disadvantage, because its not just how you phrase it, but most importantly, the message that's contained therein.

Ultimately, most who are able to read and post here, are at liberty to decide for themselves who they wish to believe, debate, follow, or "lead", as you put it.

Discussing the photos is relevant to "discussing the case". Amo.

Not penalising anybody merely commenting on what I saw unfold and the effect it's had on discussions even to this day.

Of course anybody is free to decide the relevance of the photos and to discuss them but jeez I wish it was all over on a separate thread so I could avoid it lol

pennylane wrote:
I understand the scrutiny of the last photo, particularly the date!  But if I were up to no good here, these photo shop threads would be an ideal place to create mayhem.

bobbin wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:

Hi, I understand what you're saying, I just think that yes it's possible the pic was taken at  a moment in time where it wasn't particularly windy. 

With the photo threads in general I think if we looked hard enough at any old photo, particularly digital ones which seem to sometimes distort, we'd start seeing things that looked strange. We just don't normally look that hard at photos.

I look hard at photos, and I have never before observed distortions as I have seen in Maddies photos. The parts of a person always looks larger, the closer to the camera they were when taken. Such odd distortions as suddenly growing a hunch back - as in the tennis ball photo - is one example I have never seen before. Imo the photos of Maddie are composed of images pasted together to form "different looking Maddies", to confuse the public and police, as to what she looks like, for their own "reasons" imo.

"Growing a hunch back" or hunching her shoulders a little because she's holding a load of tennis balls and almost cuddling into them?

I think the analysis of the last photo started off as a wind up mission by a "character" on the Mirror forum, I bet they're chuckling away at the fact that their legacy lives on to this day.

So you make an assumption that nothing has been photo-shopped and that someone started a joke, and is laughing still at the 'impossible reflection in Gerry's sunglasses' ?
How would you explain that 90 degree flip through of reflection if there has been no photo-shopping.

Atomic Peanut wrote:

pennylane wrote:
I understand the scrutiny of the last photo, particularly the date!  But if I were up to no good here, these photo shop threads would be an ideal place to create mayhem.

So how do you explain the two impossible sets of shadows on the playground photo, left and right of the pic? At best, it's two pictures joined together down the middle. That isn't about debate and opinion, it's a fact staring everyone in the face. That picture has been discussed on here and other forums for ages, but it cannot be an officially released photograph, surely? Was it inserted into the mix by a joker who is now sitting back laughing about it?

j.rob wrote:

Atomic Peanut wrote:

pennylane wrote:
I understand the scrutiny of the last photo, particularly the date!  But if I were up to no good here, these photo shop threads would be an ideal place to create mayhem.

So how do you explain the two impossible sets of shadows on the playground photo, left and right of the pic? At best, it's two pictures joined together down the middle. That isn't about debate and opinion, it's a fact staring everyone in the face. That picture has been discussed on here and other forums for ages, but it cannot be an officially released photograph, surely? Was it inserted into the mix by a joker who is now sitting back laughing about it?

The Joker:

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



Gerry McCann:

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

Snifferdog wrote:

Hicks wrote:Nina, that is an excellent point. That hat looks very flimsy, it would not sit neatly tucked back like that with Madeleine running around and bending down. I am beginning to think that the head has been pasted on.

The clip of GM laughing and joking, caught unaware a few days after his daughter went missing is something that always comes to mind.
At times during interviews we see how they both try to suppress a smirk, a laugh. Especially telling is the one where GM is asked what his feelings are when other people think that have seen his daughter. His grin gives a chill.

Then there's the GNR statement from that evening. The McCann's pretending to cry, 'making noises like crying but no tears'. Acting, quite badly it seems.

Sorry to go off topic, it's just that I sometimes wonder if, along with these photo's, the whole thing is one big hoax. 
 
The dogs went into 5a months after the event. Would it be possible that the scent of death was somehow transferred there after the 3rd May? Perhaps by a policeman? there were plenty going in and out. I'm not trying to rubbish the dogs, just wondering if it would be possible.

Sometimes I wonder if Perhaps Madeleine was indeed in that taxi.

Hi Hicks, but what about the blood alerts in the apt. and in the cadaver scent in the car boot and on Kates clothes?

j.rob wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:

Stillthinking wrote:

Hi, I understand what you're saying, I just think that yes it's possible the pic was taken at  a moment in time where it wasn't particularly windy. 

With the photo threads in general I think if we looked hard enough at any old photo, particularly digital ones which seem to sometimes distort, we'd start seeing things that looked strange. We just don't normally look that hard at photos.

I look hard at photos, and I have never before observed distortions as I have seen in Maddies photos. The parts of a person always looks larger, the closer to the camera they were when taken. Such odd distortions as suddenly growing a hunch back - as in the tennis ball photo - is one example I have never seen before. Imo the photos of Maddie are composed of images pasted together to form "different looking Maddies", to confuse the public and police, as to what she looks like, for their own "reasons" imo.

"Growing a hunch back" or hunching her shoulders a little because she's holding a load of tennis balls and almost cuddling into them?

I think the analysis of the last photo started off as a wind up mission by a "character" on the Mirror forum, I bet they're chuckling away at the fact that their legacy lives on to this day.

So you make an assumption that nothing has been photo-shopped and that someone started a joke, and is laughing still at the 'impossible reflection in Gerry's sunglasses' ?
How would you explain that 90 degree flip through of reflection if there has been no photo-shopping.

I think the analysis of the last photo started off as a wind up mission by a "character" on the Mirror forum, I bet they're chuckling away at the fact that their legacy lives on to this day.



Nonsense. It should be the other way round. 

The tennis ball photo is completely ridiculous. I very much doubt that the instructors running the mini-tennis sessions would have allowed the children to wear sandals. And the tennis balls that Madeleine are holding are not the type used for children's mini-tennis. I also doubt that the weather was conducive to the wearing of such a large sun-hat which would probably have fallen off anyway with all the running around.

And, as others have noted, the head is at the wrong angle to the body. The back is strangely hunched. It just looks 'wrong'. 

Presumably it would be relatively easy to establish what type of tennis balls were used for children's mini tennis at the Ocean Club that week? 

But, in any event, the prominence that TM give to this photo makes me suspect that it is not showing what is purporting to be showing. So, even ignoring the weirdness of the photo, I suspect Madeleine did not attend a mini tennis-session on Tuesday 1st May. Something had already happened or was happening.

Still, as Kate writes in her book: "Gerry loves that picture."