Re: Another look at the Last photo

by **Jill Havern** 13.09.15 9:46

Tony Bennett wrote:Incidentally, where is missbeetle? She hasn't been back to explain why she thinks, against the evidence, that Madeleine wasn't in Praia da Luz that week.

@ missbeetle

Hall-ooooooo???

She did...on this page

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

by **Tony Bennett** 13.09.15 10:35

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Incidentally, where is missbeetle? She hasn't been back to explain why she thinks, against the evidence, that Madeleine wasn't in Praia da Luz that week.

@ missbeetle

Hall-ooooooo???
She did...on this page

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

@ Get'emGoncalo @ missbeetle

That was no reply at all to the question she was asked, which was: what is her evidence that Madeleine McCann was never in Praia da Luz?

Pert of her answer was this:

"I think there were three 'Madeleines' in this manufactured Mystery: [one of them was] 'Madeleine', the Jane Doe body of a young girl (a victim of child trafficking) who was eventually laid to rest in Huelva Graveyard as part of an Operation Mincemeat-type exercise. It was [this] third 'Madeleine' the dogs rightly detected".

First point, can either of you tell me what the above actually means? - that would be very helpful.

But second, and much more important @ missbeetle once again, where is the actual evidence to support your view that Madeleine was never in Praia da Luz? Or, for that matter, how do you answer the veritable mountain of evidence that she was?

:please:

by woodpecker 13.09.15 10:47

Perhaps Miss beetle is referring to the lack of DNA evidence of Maddie's presence in the holiday apartment. Remember gerry had to go home to get something with her DNA. There was apparently not even a toothbrush of hers there. There was a story that the three children shared a toothbrush which I find hard to believe.

by Amy Dean 13.09.15 10:50

It does seem very unlikely with so little DNA evidence that she could have been there for six days and five nights.

by **Tony Bennett** 13.09.15 10:51

woodpecker wrote:Perhaps missbeetle is referring to the lack of DNA evidence of Maddie's presence in the holiday apartment. Remember Gerry had to go home to get something with her DNA. There was apparently not even a toothbrush of hers there. There was a story that the three children shared a toothbrush which I find hard to believe.

I think she needs to come clean ASAP and tell us whose was the dead body detected in Apartment G5A, and how it got there. That should clear things up pretty quickly

by **Tony Bennett** 13.09.15 10:52

Amy Dean wrote:It does seem very unlikely with so little DNA evidence that she could have been there for six days and five nights.

That's a totally valid point - but doesn't go anywhere near to being evidence that she was never there

by ROSA 13.09.15 10:55

Lol the toothbrushes. McCanns were apparently broke in 2007, must have been very broke....

by skyrocket 13.09.15 11:43

@ Verdi - I respect facts absolutely. I respect the efforts that have been put in by certain members. I have a growing respect for certain members - others none at all. I have no desire to rock the boat but I have a real problem with being told (politeness and tact - non-existent) what I can and cannot do and think. Try taking a leaf out of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s book - he seems to be a right proper gentleman.

I'm still intrigued to know what your game is - why do you waste so much time worrying about what everyone else is doing/saying? Why don't you just sit back and chill and let the MODERATORS decide what is appropriate to post.

Hang on in there @ Missbeetle! Sad that we have to have our own little support group isn't it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. There will be no "little support groups" here. Stay on topic or your posts will be deleted. Mod.

by Guest 13.09.15 11:48

Tony Bennett wrote:
Amy Dean wrote:It does seem very unlikely with so little DNA evidence that she could have been there for six days and five nights.
That's a totally valid point - but doesn't go anywhere near to being evidence that she was never there

Points to a thorough cleaning.

by sallypelt 13.09.15 11:53

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Amy Dean wrote:It does seem very unlikely with so little DNA evidence that she could have been there for six days and five nights.
That's a totally valid point - but doesn't go anywhere near to being evidence that she was never there
Points to a thorough cleaning.

Bluebag, I can distinctively remember, way back on the Mirror forum, a discussion about the cleaning materials bought by the McCann's from the local store. I am almost sure I even saw a receipt for those materials, which included bleach etc. Now the question is, WHAT was so incriminating in that apartment that it needed such a through cleaning? If it was blood from an accident, surely there would be no need to clean the WHOLE apartment? But from what we are told, the apartment was cleaned from top to bottom, eliminating all Madeleine's DNA, to such an extent that GM had to return to the UK to get her DNA.

by Guest 13.09.15 12:11

skyrocket wrote:@ Verdi - I respect facts absolutely. I respect the efforts that have been put in by certain members. I have a growing respect for certain members - others none at all. I have no desire to rock the boat but I have a real problem with being told (politeness and tact - non-existent) what I can and cannot do and think. Try taking a leaf out of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s book - he seems to be a right proper gentleman.

I'm still intrigued to know what your game is - why do you waste so much time worrying about what everyone else is doing/saying? Why don't you just sit back and chill and let the MODERATORS decide what is appropriate to post.

Hang on in there @ Missbeetle! Sad that we have to have our own little support group isn't it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. There will be no "little support groups" here. Stay on topic or your posts will be deleted. Mod.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Have you read missbeetle's posts. He/she has posted that he/she believes MBM was never in PdL. Do you agree with this?

by **Tony Bennett** 13.09.15 12:25

sallypelt wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Amy Dean wrote:It does seem very unlikely with so little DNA evidence that she could have been there for six days and five nights.
That's a totally valid point - but doesn't go anywhere near to being evidence that she was never there
Points to a thorough cleaning.
Bluebag, I can distinctively remember, way back on the Mirror forum, a discussion about the cleaning materials bought by the McCann's from the local store. I am almost sure I even saw a receipt for those materials, which included bleach etc. Now the question is, WHAT was so incriminating in that apartment that it needed such a through cleaning? If it was blood from an accident, surely there would be no need to clean the WHOLE apartment? But from what we are told, the apartment was cleaned from top to bottom, eliminating all Madeleine's DNA, to such an extent that GM had to return to the UK to get her DNA.

I also recall those discussions on various forums, but IIRC I can't remember now if there was any evidence for this alleged visit.

However, there are two references to the McCanns visiting the Baptista supermarket in Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine', which may be of interest here.

The first one was on the SUNDAY and refers to a trip allegedly made sometime in the morning (pages 51-52):

"Gerry had made a trip to Baptista, a supermarket a short distance from the Ocean Club on Rue Dr Gentil Martins, to get in a few bits and pieces for lunch, plus some cereal, to save us making the trek to the Millennium restaurant for breakfast each morning".

[NOTE: For whatever reason, the McCanns decided to have breakfast in their own room from Monday morning onwards].

Then on pages 56-57, we get this account of a trip by Gerry & Kate to the Baptista supermarket 'on the evening of Monday 30 April':

"On the evening of Monday, 30 April, I made my first foray to Baptista with Jane. We wanted to stock up on a few essentials as the next day was a pubic holiday. We all managed to make it for dinner at the Tapas restaurant that evening. Again, there was quite a cold wind..."

NOTES:

The reference to the cold wind is correct, because it was on Monday afternoon that the colder airstream moved over the Algarve, for the rest of the week, as PeterMac has fully documented elsewhere on the forum.

Continuing down page 57, we are told that:

* the apartment was cleaned by a middle-aged Portuguese lady on Monday
* on Tuesday two maintenance workers came to have a look at our washing machine
* these same two maintenance men also came to mend the 'broken window shutter mechanism'
* Kate left Apt G5A just after 10am ('to watch Gerry') - with the two washing machine & shutter repairers still in their apartment
* the same Tuesday morning Gerry had his tennis lesson, Madeleine and Ella and the Mini-Club group came to play on the adjoining court, Kate was watching them, Madeleine looked 'so gorgeous' so she ran back to Apt G5A and fetched her camera...ands took the 'Tennis Balls Photo'
* the apartment was again cleaned by a middle-aged Portuguese lady on Wednesday

by **Tony Bennett** 13.09.15 12:28

Ladyinred wrote:
skyrocket wrote:@ Verdi - I respect facts absolutely. I respect the efforts that have been put in by certain members. I have a growing respect for certain members - others none at all. I have no desire to rock the boat but I have a real problem with being told (politeness and tact - non-existent) what I can and cannot do and think. Try taking a leaf out of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]'s book - he seems to be a right proper gentleman.

I'm still intrigued to know what your game is - why do you waste so much time worrying about what everyone else is doing/saying? Why don't you just sit back and chill and let the MODERATORS decide what is appropriate to post.

Hang on in there @ Missbeetle! Sad that we have to have our own little support group isn't it.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. There will be no "little support groups" here. Stay on topic or your posts will be deleted. Mod.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Have you read missbeetle's posts? He/she has posted that he/she believes MBM was never in PdL. Do you agree with this?

Good. Now we have two significant questions awaiting an answer from fellow-members:

1. missbeetle - what's your evidence that Madeleine was never in Praia da Luz?
2. skyrocket - do you also agree that she was never there? Or if you don't agree, why do you say she was there?

by ROSA 13.09.15 12:32

sallypelt wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Amy Dean wrote:It does seem very unlikely with so little DNA evidence that she could have been there for six days and five nights.
That's a totally valid point - but doesn't go anywhere near to being evidence that she was never there
Points to a thorough cleaning.

Bluebag, I can distinctively remember, way back on the Mirror forum, a discussion about the cleaning materials bought by the McCann's from the local store. I am almost sure I even saw a receipt for those materials, which included bleach etc. Now the question is, WHAT was so incriminating in that apartment that it needed such a through cleaning? If it was blood from an accident, surely there would be no need to clean the WHOLE apartment? But from what we are told, the apartment was cleaned from top to bottom, eliminating all Madeleine's DNA, to such an extent that GM had to return to the UK to get her DNA.

Does anyone know what date these items were purchased ?

by Guest 13.09.15 12:35

We are discussing "the last photo". Please stay on topic.

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

by Guest 13.09.15 12:59

ROSA wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Amy Dean wrote:It does seem very unlikely with so little DNA evidence that she could have been there for six days and five nights.
That's a totally valid point - but doesn't go anywhere near to being evidence that she was never there
Points to a thorough cleaning.

Bluebag, I can distinctively remember, way back on the Mirror forum, a discussion about the cleaning materials bought by the McCann's from the local store. I am almost sure I even saw a receipt for those materials, which included bleach etc. Now the question is, WHAT was so incriminating in that apartment that it needed such a through cleaning? If it was blood from an accident, surely there would be no need to clean the WHOLE apartment? But from what we are told, the apartment was cleaned from top to bottom, eliminating all Madeleine's DNA, to such an extent that GM had to return to the UK to get her DNA.
Does anyone know what date these items were purchased ?

I think your question is answered @TonyBennett, post before the above.

This is just hearsay, unless concrete evidence can be produced - like a copy receipt for goods purchased or CCTV footage - that's how it should stay, hearsay! It's so easy for idle gossip to morph into full blown fact if one deviates too far from the main track.

by Guest 13.09.15 13:00

Ladyinred wrote:We are discussing "the last photo". Please stay on topic.

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

Apologies, our paths crossed.

by Guest 13.09.15 14:28

Re: Shopping for "essentials".

We don't know what they bought on holiday using their credit cards because the PJ were outrageously denied access to credit card details.

Really, really incredible.

by cbeagle 13.09.15 15:13

Verdi said:

> This is just hearsay, unless concrete evidence can be produced - like a copy receipt for goods purchased or CCTV footage - that's how it should stay, hearsay!

and

> So let me see, you're not prepared to listen to a well respected member of this forum who is passing on information from another well respected forum member who is passing on information from a professional

Isn't that information from a professional hearsay, or has said professional ever stated in public their opinion of the photo?

by **Tony Bennett** 13.09.15 15:26

cbeagle wrote:Verdi said:

> This is just hearsay, unless concrete evidence can be produced - like a copy receipt for goods purchased or CCTV footage - that's how it should stay, hearsay!

and

> So let me see, you're not prepared to listen to a well respected member of this forum who is passing on information from another well respected forum member who is passing on information from a professional

Isn't that information from a professional hearsay, or has said professional ever stated in public their opinion of the photo?

You are correct, the Professor's opinion that, after extensive forensic analysis of the Last Photo, it was wholly genuine, is hearsay.

PeterMac was only able to obtain these two (there was another one) honest opinions from top experts by promising in advance not to disclose their identities. It is sad that this is the case, but as we know only too well on this forum, to speak out either against the McCanns or to even venture any independent professional opinion on the case is fraught with dangers.

PeterMac shared the actual identities of both persons with a small group of people (I was one) whom he knew he could rely on 100% never to disclose their identities.

PeterMac has gone as far as he can and has actually published the Professor's exact words on the forum.

I suggest that every single Madeleine McCann researcher who has a genuine desire to get to the truth about what happened to her should take heed of the Professor's expert opinion on the Last Photo.

These two expert opinions may technically be 'hearsay'. But I suggest they (together with PeterMac himself who obtained the opinions) carry weight and authority

by Guest 13.09.15 18:25

Thanks for all the explanations. It left me with a new question though.
It's about the reports sent to Operation Grange about the last photo.
Do they have the research and the name of the researchers?
I always presumed so, but after reading I'm in doubt now.
Kindest regards
parapono

by Guest 13.09.15 18:59

cbeagle wrote:Verdi said:

> This is just hearsay, unless concrete evidence can be produced - like a copy receipt for goods purchased or CCTV footage - that's how it should stay, hearsay!

and

> So let me see, you're not prepared to listen to a well respected member of this forum who is passing on information from another well respected forum member who is passing on information from a professional

Isn't that information from a professional hearsay, or has said professional ever stated in public their opinion of the photo?

No comparison! A rumour circulated on the internet in days of yore about a supermarket receipt for goods purchased by the McCanns is so flimsy in terms of credibility it's not even worthy of comment. Who on earth hangs on to a supermarket receipt for household goods - straight in the bin as far as I'm aware and even if it was retained, how could anyone get their hands on it to post up on the internet? Farcical scenario wouldn't you say?

As for PeterMac, his contribution I trust implicitly, I have no reason to doubt his word or his source. As skyrocket (I think) said, a gentleman - I will add a scholar and oh so subtle, he can sting without you even knowing you've been stung. Bet he was an ace detective!

Enough of this - it's borderline off topic.

by cbeagle 13.09.15 19:11

[Thanks for the background Tony]

Why is it said the timestamp of the picture was off by an hour?

Looking at the meta data for this version: http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/gestalt-3AsTheKTPHorg.jpg

The timestamp is 13:29:51 GMT, which would have been 14:29:51 GMT+1 which was the correct daylight saving timezone for Portugal on May 3rd.

So according to the tiemstamp, it was taken at around 2:30pm.

[this is separate to the issue of if it was faked or not, but why is there discussion over the camera being off by an hour].

by skyrocket 13.09.15 20:14

@ Ladyinred & @ Tony Bennett

Re: Missbeetle - no I do not agree with all her views but I respect her right to think whatever she likes. She has also come up with a lot of interesting photos that I haven't seen before. She deserves some gratitude IMO.

I'm not 100% clear why it is necessary for you to know my views, but here you go, off the top of my head:

1. I believe MBM went to Luz - airport bus video clearly showing Dianne Webster; testimony of MBM's play school (MBM excitement 2 days prior to departure); testimony of Janet Kennedy (with MBM day before departure); testimony of Maria da Silva's daughter about seeing MBM at Sunday lunchtime; etc.

2. I believe MBM died in the Ocean Club - the cadaver dogs; improbability of any other persons having died, or being dead, in 5A; lack of general DNA attributable to MBM found in 5A, including missing toothbrush (clean up op); changing testimonies; implausible testimonies; lack of searching by parents and close friends; general strange behaviour of Mc's and Tapas 7; failure to release a current photo/likeness for the initial searches; failure to release the last photo straight away; lack of holiday photos in general; false information given to friends and relatives to ensure that the parents version of events was in MSM by early morning 4 May; lack of parental concern when the twins failed to wake up; failure of the parents, both MD's, to ask for immediate medical attention for the twins; early statement by Uncle Brian Kennedy that donations would be mainly used as a fighting fund; misdirection & obstruction of the PJ's investigation; etc; etc.

Hope that suffices.

by Guest 13.09.15 20:20

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Thanks for your response. I didn't ask for your views, just whether you agreed with missbeetle's opinion.

by skyrocket 13.09.15 20:37

@ Ladyinred - I know but @Tony Bennett did.

As your questions overlapped I took the liberty of giving a joint response. Perhaps I should have made it clear that you didn't ask for an explanation of my views whereas TB did. smilie

by Guest 13.09.15 20:40

skyrocket wrote:@ Ladyinred - I know but @Tony Bennett did.

As your questions overlapped I took the liberty of giving a joint response. Perhaps I should have made it clear that you didn't ask for an explanation of my views whereas TB did.

OK, thanks again!

by aiyoyo 13.09.15 21:07

parapono wrote:Thanks for all the explanations. It left me with a new question though.
It's about the reports sent to Operation Grange about the last photo.
Do they have the research and the name of the researchers?
I always presumed so, but after reading I'm in doubt now.
Kindest regards
parapono

Am inclined to believe the document from the expert given to the OG was wholesome, identities of experts not redacted.

Here we are talking about evidence supplied to Police after all which the police are obliged to treat with confidentiality.

by aiyoyo 13.09.15 21:49

cbeagle wrote:
Isn't that information from a professional hearsay, or has said professional ever stated in public their opinion of the photo?

Depends on what you mean by hearsay.

Can one regard expert's opinion as hearsay ?

The value of the info from the expert is something for the police to decide how they would like to treat it.

If the info was supplied to the Police (which I believe it was) it's up to the Police to decide it's value or take it further with the expert.

I won't term it as hearsay as such just because the expert has not stated their opinion in the public. Experts are used because of their expertise/skills in their field of specialization and their opinions are worthy of certain weight in a court of law.

by cbeagle 13.09.15 22:09

aiyoyo wrote:
cbeagle wrote:
Isn't that information from a professional hearsay, or has said professional ever stated in public their opinion of the photo?

Depends on what you mean by hearsay.

Can one regard expert's opinion as hearsay ?

I meant in the context of this forum. An expert's opinion is definitely hearsay when it's someone just saying they talked to an unnamed expert and reports the expert said something.

In this case it I'm satisfied it's not just an empty claim by a poster.

I believe it's good to try and understand claims by posters, rather than just accept them at face value, people have been known to be less that truthful on the internet. big grin