Re: Another look at the Last photo

by Guest 25.12.16 20:02

BlueBag wrote:Put up or shut up.

It's playing games - colloquially known as a wind-up merchant.

by James Bathgate 26.12.16 16:16

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

Here`s another version of the Last Photo that shows the same flowers as canada12`s all over Madeleine, even on her face and arms !

by Guest 26.12.16 20:10

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

by **Jill Havern** 26.12.16 21:00

James Bathgate wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here`s another version of the Last Photo that shows the same flowers as canada12`s all over Madeleine, even on her face and arms !

I wonder how canada12 explains the flowers all over Maddie's face, chest and arms?
Perhaps you could ask her as you're a member of that forum and report back?
While you're at it, maybe you could also tell costello and dannii that you've been cloning them
to cause a bit of mischief here?

The Last Photo is a bit of a sore point with some people isn't it?

by Searcher 27.12.16 2:14

I just had a thought today, and it may well be there in the research, but on the one/two days after 3rd May, did the other Tapas members of the group still leave their children alone at night? Seems a very obvious question at this late stage, but I am certainly interested to know. Come to that, what arrangements were made for the McCann twins at night after 3 May?

by **Tony Bennett** 29.12.16 12:22

Doug D wrote:Sorry, bitten my tongue for long enough and this stupid argument is going the way of the McCann twitter thread in it’s ridiculousness, which no doubt is just what TM would want.

TB:

I believe canada12's claim is that the McCanns used the 'Biscuit Photo' (below) to photoshop it on to the Last Photo.

No it wasn’t.

Canada12’s suggestion was that these photos were the nearest photos facially to that of MM in the last photo...

One thing I am certain of though is that the statement ‘we have proved absolutely that the Last Photo is a genuine, untouched photograph - and so we can all move on, having established that as a fact.’ cannot and will never be able to be stated as an absolute proof based on the available information. Sorry Tony.

What we can just about all agree on and move on from is that the photo stinks, composition, date and time taken, weather and state of sun tans etc. Quite what is actually wrong does not matter...

REST OF POST SNIPPED

@ DougD

My full reply below to your long post above:

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

The extraordinary views of canada12

Let’s just remind ourselves of some of the things canada12 has been recorded as saying:

“PeterMac is a fake…”

She refers to the two experts consulted by PeterMac as “so-called ‘experts’”
“I will not change my mind [about the flower pattern]…”

She also made this recent false statement about PeterMac: “PeterMac now agrees that the Last Photo is a composite”. He does not. He merely allowed for the remote possibility that there might have been some photoshopping but took care to repeat his view that there is overwhelming evidence that the Last Photo was taken on Sunday 29 April. canada12 merely accepts this as a ‘possibility’.

I’m sorry if any member or guest here doesn’t like it, but someone who is prepared to call PeterMac, who has done more original research on the case than most over the past 9 years, a ‘fake’, does not have a place on CMOMM. And there are others on candyfloss’s forum prepared to accuse PeterMac of working for the government and being a ’shill’. These comments are from folk who are deluded.

Others on candyfloss’s forum also share the same low opinion of PeterMac’s two experts e.g. chirpyinsect over there wrote: “They have banned a very good poster over a difference of opinion over something that is completely subjective”. TB has trotted out the two experts ad nauseam. Does he know they are both kosher? PeterMac has accepted their word…”

canada12’s theory explained

Doug D wrote:

“canada12’s suggestion was that these photos were the nearest photos facially to that of MM in the last photo, and that a photo taken at the same time could have been used in the last photo, if indeed that was the case…Simply another photo, taken at the same time but that has never been released, could have been used”.

REPLY: I accept the slight correction, but that only makes canada12’s theory still more speculative.

She invites us to believe the following:

That the flower pattern of Madeleine’s top on the ‘Biscuit Photo’ does not result from artifacts
That the McCanns ‘must have’ taken another photo of her the same day. Even though no-one has ever seen it
That Madeleine is the same age on the ‘Biscuiy Photos as she is on the Last Photo
That the flower pattern on the Last Photo is caused by photoshopping of Madeleine’s top from the Biscuit Photo onto the Last Photo
That the flower patterns on the Last Photo are not caused by her method of enlarging the photo on a Mac.

All of this is sheer speculation without evidence.

In addition she has no explanation for why the flower pattern appears on Madeleine’ neck, cheek and even on her lips – this being perhaps being the most obvious proof that her theory is false.

In addition, as I posted upthread many months ago in relation to her claim that the Last Photo has been photoshopped, the intricacies of what would need to be perfectly photoshopped are simply too many. It must be plain to all, surely (including DougD) that Madeleine is wearing a pink top/smock and NOT one with a flower pattern.

Moreover, the precision photoshopping of the shadow on Madeleine would bhe niht on impossible, and here once again I refer to the opinion of Harry Farid, Professor of Photography at a U.S. University:

QUOTE

I have taken an initial look at the image. The artifacts alluded to in the pdf document that you sent are simply JPEG compression artifacts (as described here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]). If you magnify other parts of the image you will see similar artifacts. I also performed a forensic analysis to determine if the lighting and the shadows on the people and background are consistent -- they are. I see no other anomalies in the photo. So, at first glance, I see no evidence of photo tampering.

I will add that it is fairly easy to change dates in an image's metadata or for these dates to be wrong. As such these dates should not be solely relied upon.

regards,

[Harry Farid, Professor of Photography at a U.S. University]

UNQUOTE

Has the image on the Last Photo been altered?

DougD wrote: “Exif and image data can tell if an image has been edited, but not how much. You'll need to look closer at the image to decide how much it has been edited”. He has presented the data from the photograph.

REPLY: DougD’s case, from the data he has produced, is (I think) that the image was altered in some way on 24 May, the day it was released by AFP. A photo is often altered in minor ways for use in a newspaper or on TV. This could e.g. include slight cropping of the photo or slightly altering the light/dark contrast or some such other minor alteration.

canada12’s theory does not pass muster as a credible claim that the photo was photoshopped and there is no other photoshopping theory that has any credibility. Until such time as anyone does produced a credible claim that the Last Photo was photoshopped, the default position must surely be that it wasn’t. Only the date it was taken is in issue.

It seems that many on candyfloss’s forum won’t readily give up the photoshopping claim, chirpyinsect for example referring to ‘the base shot’ on the assumption that canada12’s theory on the Last Photo is proved.

Have we proved absolutely that the Last Photo was taken on Sunday 29 April and is otherwise untouched?

DougD wrote: One thing I am certain of though is that the statement ‘we have proved absolutely that the Last Photo is a genuine, untouched photograph - and so we can all move on, having established that as a fact.’ cannot and will never be able to be stated as an absolute proof based on the available information. Sorry Tony.

REPLY: I accept that I overstated the position. I would argue however that, given the weather data and the total absence of a credible suggestion of how the Last Photo might have been photoshopped, that any jury tasked with delivering a verdict would agree beyond a reasonable doubt that the Last Photo was taken on 29 April and has not been photoshopped.

Doug D wrote: “What we can just about all agree on and move on from is that the photo stinks, composition, date and time taken, weather and state of sun tans etc. Quite what is actually wrong does not matter”.

REPLY: I cannot agree. It does matter. It matters very much when it was taken. It also matters if the evidence about when it was taken is muddied by all the fantastical claims of this or that bit of photoshopping - it devalues the main point and makes us look silly. On the original Last Photo thread, I collected and published all the crazy and contradictory photoshopping ideas, there were literally six of them and no two people could agree on what they were! What Prof .Harry Fahid and PeterMac (and others who back them) have done is to rescue us from the muddy photoshopping morass, and given us all the evidence we need about when the Last Photo was taken. The photoshopping canard is just one massive diversion, as ths thread proves.

Constant sniping and piss-taking?”

DougD wrote: “…this stupid argument is going the way of the McCann twitter thread in its ridiculousness…to cut out the constant sniping and piss-taking that has recently reached endemic proportions on here as it does nothing but devalue this forum’s basic cause…” and is laying itself open to as much ridicule as the McCann twitter thread”.

REPLY: I think some of that criticism was directed at myself. Again, I am sorry if this offends or annoys any member or guest here, but I do say that canada12 calling PeterMac ‘a fake’ and the IMO wholesale lack of credbility of her theory does justify ridicule. Also, it can in no way be compared with the hourly angry foul-mouthed exchanges that take place on the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] hashtag on Twitter.

More quotes from canada12 and her supporters:

canada12: “Unless they have access to the original photo, there’s no way they can state categorically that the picture has not been altered”.

canada12: “I took a photoshop course a couple of years ago and I was astounded by what you can do if you have the right skill and the right program”.

canada12: “That’s exactly my point about PeterMac’s experts. What criteria did they use when they stated the picture wasn’t photoshopped? Did they just eyeball the photo and make a decision? Or did they apply a digital forensic investigation of all the components of the photo?”

REPLY: See Professor Farid’s report, above.

Bampots: “If people/forums are pushing an agenda we have to show the facts that prove it wrong…openness and discussion even when it hurts is what we need…and respect”.

REPLY: By all means produce facts, not theories. It may fairly be said that some of those who keep raising photoshopping of the Lats Photo may be pushing an agenda.

TheTruthWillOut:   “Textusa got some of it right...The sunglasses reflection hasn’t been satisfactorily explained. That’s the reason I stopped posting over there”

TheTruthWillOut: Using weather stats from a place 50+ miles away isn’t really helpful or compelling It tells us nothing about the weather in Luz?

REPLIES: The TruthWillOut is clearly unaware of Darren Ware’s patient analysis of the sunglasses issue, as set out in two YouTube videos, which 100% proves how vertical images can be produced in sunglasses. Nor is he aware that PeterMac’s weather analysis was also based on contemporaneous reports by an ex-pat British meteorologist actually based in Praia da Luz. Tine for you to catch up on a few things, TheTruthWill Out?

And finally…

On the night I ‘outed ‘Richard IV ‘as ‘Woofer’ here on CMOMM and now ‘mimi’ on candyfloss’s forum.,’Inca’ over there thought I was deluded, quote Inca:

“TB has just accused Richard IV of being mimi and woofer previously, oh my”.

When Richard IV/Wooifer/mimi later admitted her deception, both mimi and former member here Helenmeg posted that they found this an occasion for ‘mirth’ and ‘laughter’.

How very sad that is, that folk should laugh about a deception that undermines our work here.

by Guest 29.12.16 18:25

“They have banned a very good poster over a difference of opinion over something that is completely subjective”.

There is nothing subjective about digital artifacts appearing as a result of resizing.

It is a fact.

There is something wrong with these people.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.01.17 8:21

BlueBag wrote: “They have banned a very good poster over a difference of opinion over something that is completely subjective”.

There is nothing subjective about digital artifacts appearing as a result of resizing.

It is a fact.

There is something wrong with these people.

They prove this on their own forum very day with their continuing obsession over CMOMM in general and myself in particular. It's the one thing they really want to talk about, and they just can't stop themselves. Their latest obsession is that I am secretly working for the McCanns, e.g. by articulating my strong doubts about the reality of the 'Smithman' sighting. This goes side by side with 'sharonl is a government shill' and 'Petermac is a fake'.

You'll all recall that canada12 was banned from CMOMM. Here she is again last night:

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

Her latest argument is:

"Stating that the Last Photo was taken on Sunday not Thurdsay, and that is the only discrepancy, is allowing the McCanns to say: 'OK, hands up, we admit it, we lied about when it was taken, but that's all".

Her delusion about the Last Photo is even deeper than I thought.

Has she no understanding that if the McCanns were to blithely admit: "OK, sorry everyone, we did mislead you about the Last Photo, PeterMac was right, yes we took that photo Sunday lunchtime", the Portuguese Police would immediately apply for a European Arrest Warrant demanding that they both face trial for perverting the course of justice? - having blatantly lied to the police in a missing person investigation?

by Tony Cadogan 05.01.17 13:39

Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote: “They have banned a very good poster over a difference of opinion over something that is completely subjective”.

There is nothing subjective about digital artifacts appearing as a result of resizing.

It is a fact.

There is something wrong with these people.
They prove this on their own forum very day with their continuing obsession over CMOMM in general and myself in particular. It's the one thing they really want to talk about, and they just can't stop themselves. Their latest obsession is that I am secretly working for the McCanns, e.g. by articulating my strong doubts about the reality of the 'Smithman' sighting. This goes side by side with 'sharonl is a government shill' and 'Petermac is a fake'.

You'll all recall that canada12 was banned from CMOMM. Here she is again last night:

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

Her latest argument is:

"Stating that the Last Photo was taken on Sunday not Thurdsay, and that is the only discrepancy, is allowing the McCanns to say: 'OK, hands up, we admit it, we lied about when it was taken, but that's all".

Her delusion about the Last Photo is even deeper than I thought.

Has she no understanding that if the McCanns were to blithely admit: "OK, sorry everyone, we did mislead you about the Last Photo, PeterMac was right, yes we took that photo Sunday lunchtime", the Portuguese Police would immediately apply for a European Arrest Warrant demanding that they both face trial for perverting the course of justice? - having blatantly lied to the police in a missing person investigation?

‘BlueBag’

“There is nothing subjective about digital artifacts appearing as a result of resizing.

It is a fact.”

The digital artefacts under discussion are due to JPEG compression, not “resizing”. ‘canada12’ engaged in enlarging a digital image, which is somewhat similar to looking at the image through a magnifying glass, in order to see the otherwise unseen details. He interpreted what he saw with the help of various digital enhancements as evidence of photoshopping. He was wrong!

It falls to ‘canada12’ or anyone holding similar views to offer something which would logically support their interpretation.

Tony Bennett

“They prove this on their own forum very day with their continuing obsession over CMOMM in general and myself in particular.”

I’ve had my share of defamatory and abusive comments on CMoMM.

“…the Portuguese Police would immediately apply for a European Arrest Warrant…”

They could and I wish they would! But…

With the benefit of hindsight, several very important steps could have but had not been taken by the Portuguese Police and other responsible agencies to avoid many of the uncertainties that have been plaguing this case for years.

I hope you have fully recovered!

Happy New Year.

by JohnyT 05.01.17 14:21

@Tony Cadogan "With the benefit of hindsight, several very important steps could have but had not been taken by the Portuguese Police and other responsible agencies to avoid many of the uncertainties that have been plaguing this case for years."

Like?

by Guest 05.01.17 14:53

Tony Cadogan wrote:

‘BlueBag’

“There is nothing subjective about digital artifacts appearing as a result of resizing.

It is a fact.”

The digital artefacts under discussion are due to JPEG compression, not “resizing”. ‘canada12’ engaged in enlarging a digital image, which is somewhat similar to looking at the image through a magnifying glass, in order to see the otherwise unseen details. He interpreted what he saw with the help of various digital enhancements as evidence of photoshopping. He was wrong!

What's the deal here Tony?

What I said is perfectly correct - resizing kicks in the jpeg compression algorithms.

You seem to want to pick a fight about nothing with me for reasons I can't fathom.

engaged in enlarging a digital image, which is somewhat similar to looking at the image through a magnifying glass,

No it isn't.

Not by a million miles.

A magnifying glass doesn't invent new data.

by Tony Cadogan 05.01.17 15:57

JohnyT wrote:@Tony Cadogan "With the benefit of hindsight, several very important steps could have but had not been taken by the Portuguese Police and other responsible agencies to avoid many of the uncertainties that have been plaguing this case for years."

Like?

Thank you for asking.

An immediate forensic examination of all digital devices and all other personal belongings of the Tapas group for starters.

A little girl had disappeared in circumstances unknown. There were immediate doubts as to the veracity of the girl’s parents. All sentiments and sensibilities should have been put aside and every piece of information that could have been gathered, however unlikely it seemed at the time to be or become useful to the investigation, should have been gathered for possible future reference.

Would’ve been cheaper than OG by orders of magnitude I should imagine.

Happy New Year to you.

by Tony Cadogan 05.01.17 16:05

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Cadogan wrote:

‘BlueBag’

“There is nothing subjective about digital artifacts appearing as a result of resizing.

It is a fact.”

The digital artefacts under discussion are due to JPEG compression, not “resizing”. ‘canada12’ engaged in enlarging a digital image, which is somewhat similar to looking at the image through a magnifying glass, in order to see the otherwise unseen details. He interpreted what he saw with the help of various digital enhancements as evidence of photoshopping. He was wrong!
What's the deal here Tony?

What I said is perfectly correct - resizing kicks in the jpeg compression algorithms.

You seem to want to pick a fight about nothing with me for reasons I can't fathom.

engaged in enlarging a digital image, which is somewhat similar to looking at the image through a magnifying glass,
No it isn't.

Not by a million miles.

A magnifying glass doesn't invent new data.

Thanks for you comment, ‘BlueBag’.

I’m unable to reply at the moment being strapped for time. Please bare with me.

Respectfully

Tony Cadogan

by JohnyT 05.01.17 16:17

Tony Cadogan wrote:
JohnyT wrote:@Tony Cadogan "With the benefit of hindsight, several very important steps could have but had not been taken by the Portuguese Police and other responsible agencies to avoid many of the uncertainties that have been plaguing this case for years."

Like?

Thank you for asking.

An immediate forensic examination of all digital devices and all other personal belongings of the Tapas group for starters.

A little girl had disappeared in circumstances unknown. There were immediate doubts as to the veracity of the girl’s parents. All sentiments and sensibilities should have been put aside and every piece of information that could have been gathered, however unlikely it seemed at the time to be or become useful to the investigation, should have been gathered for possible future reference.

Would’ve been cheaper than OG by orders of magnitude I should imagine.

Happy New Year to you.

Thank you for the reply Tony.
So do you think that 'we' are privvy to ALL the files and information then?
Happy New Year to you too.

by Searcher 05.01.17 18:31

I am still wondering what the Tapas 7 did for baby-sitting in the days after 3 May. Did they leave their children alone? Any info appreciated.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.01.17 15:10

Credit where credit is due, canada12 in the other place has broken out into a good, honest piece of common sense on the Last Photo, where she writes:

“Good point chirpy. I think this goes all the way back to the first appearance of TLP and the printed claim that the clock in the camera was an hour out. What I find strange about that claim is that there is no visible time/date stamp on the photo, so why mention it at all? The only people who would have seen the time of the photo would have been the photo agency and then anyone who had downloaded it from the internet and looked at the EXIF info. And the police. So mentioning that the clock was an hour out publicly like that pre-anticipated questions being asked about when the photo was taken, and where Madeleine and Gerry were at that time. I think the only reasons TLP surfaced were to try and give Gerry an alibi for a contentious time period, and to try and place Madeleine in that same time and day, thus trying to prove she was alive.

"But to get back to your original point. I believe as soon as that time/date discrepancy was mentioned, people looked at the EXIF data and started theoriszing about whether or not it could be altered. And it was very quickly discovered that if you had the right software - easily available online - you could indeed alter the time and date stamp without it being detected. And that's where all the discussions started”.

That’s an analysis fully in line with PeterMac’s experts and all the other amateur experts on CMOMM whose views contributed to CMOMM’s current understanding of the Last Photo. Fine. But then she goes on:

“He [Tony Bennett] really has a bee in his bonnet about me, doesn't he! I'm tickled that I'm considered so important that he's wasted so much time canada12-bashing. If I was really that unimportant he'd have long ago stopped mentioning me and moved on - but no, it seems to be vitally necessary to keep bringing me up and arguing with me”.

REPLY: No, it is simply a question of eliminating the bad ‘dress pattern theory’ which became even more of a nonsense when the alleged ‘dress pattern appeared on Madeleine’s neck, cheek and even her lips.

Mind you, the other place continues to be replete with comments by people apparently incapable of rational thought, e.g. this one:

“If the McCanns came out now and admitted that that particular photo was in fact taken on the Sunday/Monday, then would it actually alter the investigation now in anyway?”

REPLY: Not much! The four pages in ‘madeleine’ by Kate (pp. 65-8) would be full of untruths about the Thursday – sitting by the pool in the sun, carefully removing the hair beads at bath time etc. etc. It would undermine the credibility of the whole book at a stroke

Then there was this from dee coy

“The Sunday was the nearest ‘weather’ match that week, but to me the weather looks significantly warmer – very hot – and I think it was taken later in May just before Gerry’s trip to the UK. I think there was pressure to produce a photo proving M was around on the 3^rd and the visit was to change the date back in time and add Madeleine (or her head) onto the photo”.

This is brilliant! dee coy can tell how hot it was on a photo just by looking at it! “Hmm, 70 degrees hey? No, I reckon at least 80”.

Or: “Hey dee coy! Look at this photo! Come and tell us how hot it was!” dee coy: “Ooh, let me see, hmmm, more than 87 but no more than 95, I’d say”.

Helenmeg meekly agrees with this nonsense – “Yes agree with all that”.

Notice that neither of them has bothered to check if there really were any hot days after 3 May.

Finally someone else has posted up this rubbish:

“They just needed to produce some sort of family photo, preferably the 3^rd (to name it the Last Photo) but didn’t have one. So they cobbled one up”

And this sort of view is supposed to ‘top’ the view of two international experts?

by Guest 07.01.17 15:24

Their mission is to muddy waters by adding lots of brown stuff.

However, verifiable evidence and rational thinking will win the day eventually.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.01.17 23:03

An open question to forum members from 'candyfloss':

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

QUOTE

For those who suggest something happened to Madeleine right at the start of the holiday, and with all this so called 'evidence' they have, which of course is nothing of the sort apart from speculation, that she according to them died earlier...How on earth do they explain how all those people acted normally for the rest of the week, playing tennis and taking children to creches etc. Are they seriously trying to tell us they were all such good actors, enjoying their holiday, whilst they knew something terrible had happened to Madeleine? No chance, it would be impossible for so many to possibly do that, and to say perhaps some didn't know, then how could they explain where Madeleine was?

by Searcher 07.01.17 23:13

If the stakes are high enough, it can be done.

by Guest 07.01.17 23:35

BlueBag wrote:Their mission is to muddy waters by adding lots of brown stuff.

However, verifiable evidence and rational thinking will win the day eventually.

They certainly deposit a bilge load of crotte in their wake. Still, it's a closed shop so irrational thinking prevails.

by Guest 08.01.17 10:26

Tony Bennett wrote:An open question to forum members from 'candyfloss':

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

QUOTE

For those who suggest something happened to Madeleine right at the start of the holiday, and with all this so called 'evidence' they have, which of course is nothing of the sort apart from speculation, that she according to them died earlier...

Based on the fact (their own words) that Kate slept in the children's room on Tuesday night (at least)... I think something may have happened to Madeleine at some point prior to this and the reason Kate was there was to keep an eye on her (hey... they were all doctors and could resuscitate and stuff..) but things badly deteriorated.

Now that is speculation, but it has some basis to it.

As opposed to speculation with nothing to base it on.

by Guest 08.01.17 10:54

Why bring posts over from another forum? What good does it do? What another set people who belong to a different group believe about the same subject is hardly relevant here. As with any topic, subject or issue folks would have differing views. We have to remember the views on this forum cannot always be right.

Personally if I wanted to read what was going on candyfloss's forum I would join (if I wasn't banned!) and others can do the same. I can't see what's to be gained by constantly referring to them.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.01.17 11:58

HKP wrote:Why bring posts over from another forum? What good does it do? What another set people who belong to a different group believe about the same subject is hardly relevant here. As with any topic, subject or issue folks would have differing views. We have to remember the views on this forum cannot always be right.

@ HKP The challenge from 'candyfloss' was public. Not all challenges from extraneous sources should be published here. But in this case I think it is quite right to give it an airing and allow people to respond, whatever their 'take' on what really happened to Madeleine.

After all, candyfloss's challenge goes to the very heart of what fate befell Madeleine.

I also think many members and guests here will be interested in what is said in answer to the challenge, whatever their point of view.

CMMOM is not a forum that doesn't allow other voices. On the contrary. What we don't allow, however, is people to come here with bad, unevidenced theories which fly in the face of much superior evidence. If anyone can bring good evidence in support of candyfloss's case, fine.

The point about how people could carry on as normal after a major disaster, e.g. a child dying in their care, and carrying on just normal, playing tennis, eating out etc. is easily addressed. The answer is that it happens all the time. Look at any case where a individual or family has covered up a crime and it is amazing how they can play-act and carry on as though nothing had happened.

The main charge leveled by candyfloss is that people on this forum are engaged in uninformed, unevidenced speculation.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We have been discussing all sorts of actual evidence.

I would turn the challenge back to candyfloss and those who support her line of thinking, by asking these questions:-

1. Have you read and understood the series of contradictions surrounding the alleged high tea at around 5pm on Thursday 3 May?

2. Have you read, understood and absorbed the evidence presented by Nigel Moore and Dr Martin Roberts which suggests that Kate washed Madeleine' pyjamas on the Thursday morning, photogrpahed them, handed the photograph to Leicestershire Police, then held them up on Crimewatch 5 June and again in Amsterdam 7 June, pretending they were really Amelie's?

3. Have you read, digested and understood HideHo's research, published here and on her site, where she demonstrates that there is no credible sighting of Madeleine, independent of the McCanns and their friends, after Sunday?

4. Have you appreciated the sheer strength of the evidence that the 'Last Photo' was taken on the Sunday?

5. Do you understand that Nuno Lourenco's fabricated sighting of 'Sagresman' (Wojcheich Krokowski) must have been planned well in advance of 10pm on 3 Thurdsay 3 May

6. Do you accept the evidence that Jane Tanner also based her initial description on the very same man - Krokowski?

Unless you stop avoiding and ducking this and other evidence, you are doomed never to gain a true understanding of what really happened that week.

by Searcher 08.01.17 12:24

Well said, if I may, Tony Bennett. Exactly the points that relate.

by **Jill Havern** 08.01.17 12:33

It is not part of CMOMM research to answer how or why people behaved in the way they did. We merely observe that they did, and show how sometimes this was incompatible with what they were telling the world - coming out of church etc.

We do not have to 'explain', nor to show how it is far from "impossible' for Savile, Freud, Clifford, Harris, Green, Maxwell, Ponzi, and many others to behave the way they did for so long, despite holding the most dreadful secrets.

The facts are there. If they choose not to look at them there is nothing anyone can do about it. Their minds are not going to be altered by argument.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 08.01.17 12:54

It's not such a terrible question and I don't consider it was a challenge to cmomm. Ok so it's on their open forum however I see quite a lot of 'accusations' etc. over the internet directed either at here or Tony in particular and take the view it's best ignored. All of your points above could be considered relevant however you make the mistake of using the 'evidence' word. In most cases this is a interpretation of what is in the files or has been pieced together. If all the interpretations made here were actual evidence the case would have been solved long ago.

I appreciate you may feel you are defending cmomm and the members here however I think we should leave other forums to discuss whatever the think is relevant wthout us having to read it here. Only my opinion, others may differ and prefer the animosity.

by Guest 08.01.17 13:13

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:An open question to forum members from 'candyfloss':

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

QUOTE

For those who suggest something happened to Madeleine right at the start of the holiday, and with all this so called 'evidence' they have, which of course is nothing of the sort apart from speculation, that she according to them died earlier...
Based on the fact (their own words) that Kate slept in the children's room on Tuesday night (at least)... I think something may have happened to Madeleine at some point prior to this and the reason Kate was there was to keep an eye on her (hey... they were all doctors and could resuscitate and stuff..) but things badly deteriorated.

Now that is speculation, but it has some basis to it.

As opposed to speculation with nothing to base it on.

We only have the Mc's word for it that K slept in the room and what night it was, hardly makes it a fact given all the other lies

by Hesinsenburg 08.01.17 13:24

Tony Bennett wrote:

Unless you stop avoiding and ducking this and other evidence, you are doomed never to gain a true understanding of what really happened that week.

I doubt I'll be able to remain long but in answer to this,Tony lets just say for arguments sake,once you have gained a true understanding of what happened under your terms just where will this knowledge get you, go look in the mirror and ask yourself this,I/we on cmomm have a complete understanding of the event's surrounding the mystery of the disappearence of Madeleine Mccann,who is going to answer and congratulate you,the McCanns themselves? Carter Ruck? the PJ? and last but certainly not least any one connected with OG? really?
Its not a competition to the race to the bottom but believing that the knowledge gained on here will in any way influence any one of any standing is sadly misplaced.

by **HiDeHo** 08.01.17 14:06

Tony Bennett wrote:An open question to forum members from 'candyfloss':

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

QUOTE

For those who suggest something happened to Madeleine right at the start of the holiday, and with all this so called 'evidence' they have, which of course is nothing of the sort apart from speculation, that she according to them died earlier...How on earth do they explain how all those people acted normally for the rest of the week, playing tennis and taking children to creches etc. Are they seriously trying to tell us they were all such good actors, enjoying their holiday, whilst they knew something terrible had happened to Madeleine? No chance, it would be impossible for so many to possibly do that, and to say perhaps some didn't know, then how could they explain where Madeleine was?

I would like to make something clear, TO EVERYONE and that is I do not claim that Maddie died on Sunday or Monday.

I believe something happened Sunday or Monday which explains what I have found in the files.

Maybe some dont realise I spent 4 years compiling hundreds of timetables and timelines from statements and subsequently comparing them to reveal an extraordinary amount of discrepancies......

REMEMBERING MADELEINE REFERENCE FORUM
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

TIMETABLES COVERING VARIOUS TIMES DURING HOLIDAY
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

STATEMENT COMMENT BY TOPIC
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hundreds more pages of researched info from witness statements etc.....

I look at what is in the files (whether true or not but its all I have to work on) and set it out and compare to see what it tells me.

Take the probability of something happening earlier...

I can't change my thoughts on that because its what the files tell me and I have seen nothing to change it since beginning of 2008

I'm not entirely sure how others came to a similar conclusion, I can only say that the files discrepancies started Tuesday morning and probably logic tells me that they exist because something is being hidden. The truth of that week had to be covered up and the only way to do it was describe things differently, but when compared to other statements they dont match.

That to me is a good indication of hiding something. From Tuesday morning (at least) onwards.

I then tried to prove myself wrong. I figured if I could find ONE sighting during the week that was specific 'proof' of her being seen then I would have to consider the discrepancies were attributed to another reason....but, I did not find ONE witness statement after Fatima.

I think we can all agree that she was very specific and also she would not have known that they claimed to go to Paynes apartment at lunch on Sunday so that, for me, when she described them going there was the 'proof' that she really did see them

Some have suggested it wasn't Maddie etc and of course anything is possible but as far as I am concerned this is what the files tell me.

Maddie was seen 1.15pm on Sunday April 29th.

For a while I thought it was Tuesday by the tennis coach, but when I went back and read her statement she may have just been reading from records as she says 'she was in a group' and how likely in the short time she was with them would she remember Maddie specifically?

If she had said something about her twin brother and sister coming on to the court to give her a hug (eg) that would be specific.

If she had said I remember her wearing pink sandals that werent appropriate.... or I recall her mother taking a pic of her when she had an armful of balls then THAT would have been specific...but no...nothing...

The nanny for the twins only claimed to have seen her once (which could have been Sunday Monday) If she had said that we saw Maddie most days when the twins were dropped off...or when they picked them up then THAT would have been credible. But...nothing...

The fact there was NOT any specific sighting of her after Sunday does not mean she WASNT seen, only that there is nothing in the files to say she was.

That in itself does not mean a lot.

So... Last seen on Sunday and discrepancies started Tuesday morning...

THATS why I feel something happened during that time. Not because I tried to explain anything because I figured they needed time in the week to get everything together.

I collated those two simple reasons back in 2010 (or before) and since then have watched and waited for something to prove I'm wrong.

Photoshopping of the last photo was all the rage for a long time. I never followed with it as I felt it was likely to have been taken another day. A far easier reason.

Checking 3a I see that I believed something happened earlier, basically from the start so it was logic to me that it wasnt taken on that day.

Unfortunately I dont have to time to be a full participant in threads here, and Tony is aware that I don't always agree with some theories, but I can answer any questions regarding my research on an individual basis.

I DO NOT USE SPECULATION. I have laid the groundwork of what happened during that week using witness statements and its up to the individual to decide if their theory fits into that 'groundwork'.

If someone can explain ALL of the 50 or more discrepancies that started Tuesday morning...

Title: DISCREPANCY LIST & ALL RESEARCH LINKS (from witness statements)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If someone can show me a witness statement that is specific to Madeleine 'proving' (in a similar way to Fatima) that she was seen during the week then I will re-assess my thoughts based on what is in the files.

Title: Who Saw Madeleine?- Credibility & Statement Highlights
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I have believed something happened to Maddie earlier in the week since BEFORE MARCH 2008 when I posted this in 3A

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

by **Tony Bennett** 08.01.17 15:24

Hesinsenburg wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

Unless you stop avoiding and ducking this and other evidence, you are doomed never to gain a true understanding of what really happened that week.
I doubt I'll be able to remain long but in answer to this, Tony let's just say for argument's sake, once you have gained a true understanding of what happened under your terms just where will this knowledge get you, go look in the mirror and ask yourself this, I/we on CMOMM have a complete understanding of the event's surrounding the mystery of the disappearence of Madeleine McCann, who is going to answer...?

No-one on here, certainly not me, is insisting we have anything like a 'complete' understanding of what happened to Madeleine.

It's not a competition to the race to the bottom but believing that the knowledge gained on here will in any way influence any one of any standing is sadly misplaced.

That is an argument for doing nothing and researching nothing - and I comprehensively reject it. Let me give you just one example. PeterMac has sent literally dozens of analyses of evidence to DCIs Redwood and Wall at Operation Grange over the years. They are meticulously compiled and exhaustively referenced. To my mind they each contain valuable and irrefutable evidence. Has he been wasting his time? He argues that inevitably, there will come a day - no-one knows when and how - when the whole house of cards comes crashing down. Then, but only then, will it become plain how those entrusted by the state with searching for the truth have done everything in their power to bury it. There will then be a day of reckning for anyone who has knowingly covered anything up.