FIRST photo

by **PeterMac** 10.04.15 20:30

You suggested this might need a thread of its own.

worriedmum on Wed 8 Apr 2015 - 22:45
Slightly off topic, but could you explain about the posters and why the pictures are not from the Canon or Olympus, Petermac?
Are you saying that they were not on a memory stick either? (Does this need a new topic of its own?.....)

See some of Tigger's recent work on the FIRST photo. Very interesting, and thought provoking.
Tierney has a brother who is - - - - a photographer
and who posts his stuff on - - - - - the same site identified a couple of years ago where another McCann close family member used to post depraved images . . . He has now 'whooshed' them !
Copied from Facebook.

Tigger has done extensive research on the first photo handed to the GNR but has summarised the blogs for technophobes like myself
Conclusions
Since the last five posts may have been rather heavy reading, certainly for those who prefer ‘McCann Light’ here follow the salient points made in the previous posts:
Part 1: In the technical details we see that neither the Canon camera nor the Olympus can have been used to print the photograph.
The printer - if the camera is docked on the printer can print from a USB stick.
It is not likely that it can print 30 copies without running out of ink. The paper used is not available in the area.
However, the aspect ratio of said photo is wrong for the Canon which is the camera from which allegedly the photograph was copied. So we still don’t know where the photo came from. We do know that it did not come from the Canon as stated in the rogatories. Neither do we know how it got onto the USB stick or even if there was one that evening.
A ‘normal’ way to print a photograph from the Canon which is pictbridge enabled, is to use the usb lead that comes with the camera and print from the camera direct. This simple method is never even mentioned.
Conclusion: if there was a USB key, it already had the photo on it. Both ROB and AT talk about one photo, one pose. Although ROB seems to be talking about the iconic red dress one and AT doesn’t mention the kind of photo at all.
But as we will see, the plot thickens, as there were two photographs, different poses.
Part 2: GNR statements speak for themselves and give the time of their arrivals.
Silvia Batista’s statement gives a period of time well before 24.00 in which the photographs are handed over.
Part 3: ROB must have gone over the photographs questions four times in two days.
Twice on the 8th and twice on the 10th since there are two lots of questions on the printing of the photo.
Only one photo is mentioned and from ROB’s description it was the iconic one. He cannot remember what photo it was as he’s seen so many since. Since PdL was plastered with hundreds of these posters for weeks, it’s rather strange the image escapes him.
The printing episode is reduced to the vaguest recollection. Most importantly, he does not mention Tierney or a USB key. Not at all. Instead he thinks it was ‘Kat’ - the nanny he must have seen every day when he signed in his daughter.
He does give a time: ‘well before the PJ came’ which doesn’t help much but puts the time before midnight. (one nanny gives midnight as the arrival time of the PJ) See also timeline part 5.
Part 4: Amy Tierney. She is word perfect on the 17th of April. ( there must be a withheld statement before this as she mentions previous statements regarding the printer). This is a week after ROB’s rogatory interview on the 10th. She mentions a USB key, ROB asked her to print photographs. She was at her desk in the Tapas (that Tapas is more crowded than I thought - only room for 20 guests, no room for big round table but somewhere a desk for the supervisor of the nannies - ah well, handy for a drink) .
Only fly in the ointment is the timing: at her desk at 24.00. Goes to her room, gets the printer (necessary camera to dock and enable USB key to be used is not mentioned). Returns to Tapas, sets up the printer and paper - we are now at least some ten minutes further.
24.10 starts printing. The Kodak prints each photo in 90 seconds. Photographs need to dry to some extent so say the first batch of five will take at least 8 minutes before they are ready to take across to 5a - another minute or so to get there.
So at the earliest there are five photos ready around 00.20. More likely 00.30. No longer ‘well before the PJ arrive’ and certainly much later than the time given by Silvia Batista when she gave the photographs to (probably) Officer Roque of the GNR.
Part 5: The timeline speaks for itself. A timeline of ROB’s movements that night would be good but the only point to make here is that according to his own testimony he was in 5a well before the PJ arrived. So he could not have been in the Tapas waiting for photographs to be printed. He was busy writing the timelines and these were impounded hot from the press so to speak.

Is there ANYTHING straightforward about this case, or the McCanns, or their extended family, or the people they associate with . . . ?

by aiyoyo 11.04.15 11:35

For reference point - FIRST photo is the one of a younger looking Madeleine (chubby 2YO), one which Dr. Amaral used for his book cover.

So many questions on the FIRST photo :-

Why did ROB select AT to give the USB stick to?

How did AT know ROB was telling her the truth - that the stick came from one of Mcs Cameras?

Did any of them two witness Kate or Gerry taking it out of their camera?
(Kate or Gerry would have had to be in that mindset at probably not much prior to 24.00 on 3 May for it to have been given to ROB and be with AT for printing? )

Why did AT use her personal printer (domestic printer - not hers but belongs to boyfriend) and not the company's printer for the purpose?
(20-30 A4 size photos would go through at least few ink cartridges, and would take forever to print on a domestic printer.)

When exactly (at what time exactly) was the USB stick given to her?

How long (time duration) did it take to print the 20-30 photos? Was ROB with AT throughout the printing process?

If the printings were done at the Tapas area, did no one/ anyone witness (AT and ROB) at this printing process? If not at Tapas area, where was it done?

Why did she not ask ROB why he chose that old photo (photo of a chubby Madeleine looking about 2-year old) when as head of Mini club she'd seen Madeleine, knew the photo was not an real-time reflection of Madeleine?

Were there no other photos, like holiday photos to select from the USB stick? (where were the rest of the photos or holiday photos ?)

Did ROB go through the photos with her (AT) before deciding on that one ?

How did ROB know that particular one was 'IT' that the Mcs wanted to be printed?
(Was there only one photo on the USB stick or an array of photos? As in pre-prepared/pre-med vs implusive/spontaneous?)

Had ROB gone through the USB stick with the MCs - discussed / conferred and then decided upon the photo - before he approached AT?
(That would imply a time process was needed to do all that in the midst of a fresh chaotic and frantic situation.)

The Police had arrived before 24 hr. Where were they when the photo printings were in process? Did they not witness the printing?

Why did the Mcs /Tapas Group not mention this photo printing thing to the Police? Since it was a crucial thing for police to know what the missing child looks like?

How did AT manage to remember the made/model/technical specs of the Kodak Printer (a printer that was not hers - one that she had not bought for herself or owned - but that of her boyfriend) when she told the Police these details in her subsequent deposition a year later in 2008?
(Note: Not many people are technical minded, especially women are hopeless on that aspect, and even if technical rarely pay attention to the type or specs of printer lent to them and probably used very occasional for limited purposes.)

The circumstances surrounding the providence of the FIRST photo gets weirder and weirder ......

If the memory card that holds said photo is not from either of the Mcs Olympus or Canon camera, that must mean the Mcs had brought this memory card together with the USB stick along with them for their holiday. The timing and circumstances of the production of the FIRST photo is as suspicious as the LAST photo.

It's not unusual for people to bring as many memory cards (and even USB stick) as they require for holiday if they were planning to take lots of photos. However, it's not usual at all for people to remember they'd it with them at a time of total panic, frantic, frightened and chaos situation, or to be practical minded and straight thinking in that kind of situation.

by aiyoyo 11.04.15 11:37

PeterMac wrote:
See some of Tigger's recent work on the FIRST photo. Very interesting, and thought provoking.
Tierney has a brother who is - - - - a photographer
and who posts his stuff on - - - - - the same site identified a couple of years ago where another McCann close family member used to post depraved images . . . He has now 'whooshed' them !
Copied from Facebook.

Is there ANYTHING straightforward about this case, or the McCanns, or their extended family, or the people they associate with . . . ?

Yes, deserving of a new thread.

Indeed! Nothing is straightforward about this case.

by Guest 11.04.15 13:46

I have always found the production of the photo confusing and difficult to understand, as I'm quite useless regarding computers, cameras and the combination of both. So, yes, good to have its own topic for further scrutiny. Thanks to PeterMac, who brought the cameras/first photo issue to our attention several months ago, and to Tigger.

by **PeterMac** 11.04.15 14:37

Most importantly, he [ROB] does not mention Tierney or a USB key. Not at all. Instead he thinks it was ‘Kat’ - the nanny he must have seen every day when he signed in his daughter.

He cannot tell them apart ?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **PeterMac** 11.04.15 14:59

AT made a statement on 5/5/8 in which there is no mention at all of photos, printers, cameras, ROB, going back to the apartment . . . NOTHING
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

AT made another statement a year later, April '08, in which crucially she says

Has made previous statements {PLURAL} in May last year.
. . .
When questioned and shown the photographs referred to in the previous statements, depicting the English girl, on 'Kodak Xtra Life ' paper, 10 x 15, she said they were printed on her printer, also of Kodak brand.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
TENTATIVE CONCLUSION
There is a statement missing from the files, in which the photos are discussed.

Was AT at Rothley?, did she make a crucial statement after the secret meeting ?
ROB's rogatory is after the meeting and is a mess of drivelling nonsense. One wonders if he is deliberately seeking to confuse the issue.

According to people who own the machine and who have reviewed it on Amazon, it takes 90 seconds to make ONE copy, so 30 is three quarters of an hour. It is very expensive, £30 for 40 sheets of the special treated paper, and the ink cartridges are also expensive.

Something is not quite right . . .

by jeanmonroe 11.04.15 15:03

The same 'FIRST' photo that was 'pushed' upon the Pope!

We KNOW they had a 'LAST' photo of Madeleine, taken just hours, and 'in' KM's camera, BEFORE her 'disappearance', because KM has told us so, (and Gerry's 'favourite', apparently!) and we KNOW they had 'cropped' the LAST photo, because they 'framed' the 'crop', of Madeleine, in 'isolation', and had it in their apartment, on bedside 'cabinet'.

WHY didn't they 'push', the very LAST, cropped, 'photo' of Madeleine, (by the 'pool') on the Pope, to 'bless'?

Why didn't they 'push' on the Pope a photo of ALL their THREE kids?

Get them ALL 'blessed'?

Why 'present' the Pope with a 'photo' that was so 'out of date'?

The same 'reason' WHY they didn't give 'police/searchers/locals' the very LAST photo, of Madeleine, so they would, at least, KNOW, who they were supposed to be 'looking' for?

The 'girl', imaged, in the FIRST photo, given to 'searchers/police' would not have been 'recognised' by ANYONE on the 4th May 2007.

Much 'younger', different 'hair' style!

The LAST photo, of Madeleine, by 'pool', might have been, 'recognised', right?

So WHY did they not 'give' the police/searchers/locals' that one?

On THE 'night/next day'

People were NOT 'looking' for the 'girl in the red dress' and 'she' would never be 'found' because 'she' WAS NOT 'THERE', was 'she'?

Maybe people WERE 'looking' for the 'girl in the red dress', because that was the photo GIVEN to them, but they never 'found' HER, did they?

Quelle surprise?

Er..............NON!

The LAST photo, of Madeleine, by 'pool', might have been, 'recognised', right?

So WHY did they not 'give' the police/searchers/locals' that one?

On THE 'night/next day'
---------------------------------------

I'll 'hazard' a 'guess'

IT HADN'T BEEN 'CREATED' YET!

(the THREE week 'gap' before 'it' was publicly RELEASED, AFTER GM's 'trip' back to UK to, er, 'pick it up'?)

istbc, as always.

But, but, the 'last' (poolside) photo was NOT in the PJ 'released' photos, in their 'files', was it?

I 'wonder' why NOT?

thinking

DUH! It wasn't 'there' (imo)

by **PeterMac** 11.04.15 15:48

jeanmonroe wrote:
The LAST photo, of Madeleine, by 'pool', might have been, 'recognised', right?
So WHY did they not 'give' the police/searchers/locals' that one?
On THE 'night/next day'
I'll 'hazard' a 'guess'
IT HADN'T BEEN 'CREATED' YET!
(the THREE week 'gap' before 'it' was publicly RELEASED, AFTER GM's 'trip' back to UK to, er, 'pick it up'?)
istbc, as always.
But, but, the 'last' (poolside) photo was NOT in the PJ 'released' photos, in their 'files', was it?
I 'wonder' why NOT?
DUH! It wasn't 'there' (imo)

I believe it was on the other camera. The Canon, which we can see on the dining table, and not the Olympus they handed over.
Hence they had control of it, and kept it back until the necessary "adjustments' had been done by someone who knew how to.
Then it was released by Mitchell with all the fanfare and "look over here, not over there" of the time being wrong by one hour . . .
in other words look at the DATE.
Oh, and another thing . . .
Could you possibly not put two 'carriage returns' between lines - it makes it difficult to read winkwink

by jeanmonroe 11.04.15 16:02

PeterMac wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
The LAST photo, of Madeleine, by 'pool', might have been, 'recognised', right?
So WHY did they not 'give' the police/searchers/locals' that one?
On THE 'night/next day'
I'll 'hazard' a 'guess'
IT HADN'T BEEN 'CREATED' YET!
(the THREE week 'gap' before 'it' was publicly RELEASED, AFTER GM's 'trip' back to UK to, er, 'pick it up'?)
istbc, as always.
But, but, the 'last' (poolside) photo was NOT in the PJ 'released' photos, in their 'files', was it?
I 'wonder' why NOT?
DUH! It wasn't 'there' (imo)
I believe it was on the other camera. The Canon, which we can see on the dining table, and not the Olympus they handed over.
Hence they had control of it, and kept it back until the necessary "adjustments' had been done by someone who knew how to.
Then it was released by Mitchell with all the fanfare and "look over here, not over there" of the time being wrong by one hour . . .
in other words look at the DATE.
Oh, and another thing . . .
Could you possibly not put two 'carriage returns' between lines - it makes it difficult to read

DONE!

by aiyoyo 11.04.15 21:13

jeanmonroe wrote:

Why didn't they 'push' on the Pope a photo of ALL their THREE kids?

Because not all the three need to be blessed.
Only the dead one needs to be blessed by the Pope as recognition by the Catholic Church of a dead person's entrance into Heaven.

Kate was dressed in black for her meeting with the Pope. People dressed in black for funeral service.

by **PeterMac** 11.04.15 22:23

Jeanmonroe
This is the one I was looking for.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by lj 12.04.15 2:33

OMG that had me crying!!

The sad thing: kids nowadays probably don't even get the joke!

by Guest 12.04.15 12:43

Could someone kindly post the first photo being discussed?

by Rufus T 12.04.15 12:58

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
I think this is the one, with thanks to mccannfiles.

ps happy to have finally discovered how to post images.

by Guest 12.04.15 13:42

Thank you.

by **PeterMac** 12.04.15 13:57

And that photo became the two posters we believe were photocopied on the machine in the main reception.
That would account for the transformation from 6x4 into A4 format with the wording scribbled badly onto the backing sheet.

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

by aiyoyo 12.04.15 14:52

lj wrote:OMG that had me crying!!

The sad thing: kids nowadays probably don't even get the joke!

Why? I thought that was a funny image.
I used to have one of those CR (carriage return) typewriter, and I still think it is cool, except I didn't like the ink ribbon that needs changing.

by aiyoyo 12.04.15 14:55

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
What the wordings on the side? 3 yrs ? from last night? No contact nr listed, pathetic.

by lj 12.04.15 16:15

aiyoyo wrote:
lj wrote:OMG that had me crying!!

The sad thing: kids nowadays probably don't even get the joke!

Why? I thought that was a funny image.
I used to have one of those CR (carriage return) typewriter, and I still think it is cool, except I didn't like the ink ribbon that needs changing.

Crying from laughing I mean. I think a lot of kids have never seen that movement, so they don't see how funny this is.

I still have one of those in storage, I could not bring it up to throw it out.

by Rufus T 12.04.15 17:29

Funny clip, I'm fairly certain that if my father was ever faced with a pc he would do the same thing, he still uses an old typewriter.
My parents also still have ancient two pin electric wiring, antimacassars and the only heating is from a coal fire, can't be doing with all these new fangled luxuries like central heating and safe wiring. big grin

by jeanmonroe 13.04.15 0:51

aiyoyo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
What the wordings on the side? 3 yrs ? from last night? No contact nr listed, pathetic.

Who they gonna call?.............'ghost' busters'?

Apparently, not a lot of people 'recall' seeing Madeleine, at all, in the time she was 'there'.

And deffo not on 3rd May 2007!

"Don't you see me here, am i a ghost to you?" JAMES. (chekkit, innit?)

by Guest 13.04.15 8:07

PeterMac wrote:And that photo became the two posters we believe were photocopied on the machine in the main reception.
That would account for the transformation from 6x4 into A4 format with the wording scribbled badly onto the backing sheet.

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

So this was the photo distributed to assist with the search immediately after the disappearance. How old is MBM here - 3?
Intriguing.

by Liz Eagles 13.04.15 8:27

PeterMac wrote:And that photo became the two posters we believe were photocopied on the machine in the main reception.
That would account for the transformation from 6x4 into A4 format with the wording scribbled badly onto the backing sheet.

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

It wouldn't take a mastermind to trace the person who scribbled on the back of the A4 poster. This isn't imo the handwriting of a Brit - see the lower case letter 'a' for starters and then look at the way in which the lower case letter 'i' has a circle instead of a dot above it. This is hybrid writing. IMO it's someone who has been educated in UK and is used to writing in Portuguese.

ETA: This writing belongs to a woman imo.

by Guest 13.04.15 8:33

aquila wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
It wouldn't take a mastermind to trace the person who scribbled on the back of the A4 poster. This isn't imo the handwriting of a Brit - see the lower case letter 'a' for starters and then look at the way in which the lower case letter 'i' has a circle instead of a dot above it. This is hybrid writing. IMO it's someone who has been educated in UK and is used to writing in Portuguese.

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

by Liz Eagles 13.04.15 8:36

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
aquila wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
It wouldn't take a mastermind to trace the person who scribbled on the back of the A4 poster. This isn't imo the handwriting of a Brit - see the lower case letter 'a' for starters and then look at the way in which the lower case letter 'i' has a circle instead of a dot above it. This is hybrid writing. IMO it's someone who has been educated in UK and is used to writing in Portuguese.

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

Thanks Clay, I couldn't remember where those restaurant sheets were in the archives.

by Richard IV 13.04.15 9:06

aquila wrote:
PeterMac wrote:And that photo became the two posters we believe were photocopied on the machine in the main reception.
That would account for the transformation from 6x4 into A4 format with the wording scribbled badly onto the backing sheet.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
It wouldn't take a mastermind to trace the person who scribbled on the back of the A4 poster. This isn't imo the handwriting of a Brit - see the lower case letter 'a' for starters and then look at the way in which the lower case letter 'i' has a circle instead of a dot above it. This is hybrid writing. IMO it's someone who has been educated in UK and is used to writing in Portuguese.

ETA: This writing belongs to a woman imo.

Circles instead of a dot above the i = immaturity and attention seeking

"Dots That Are Drawn In A Circle, Or Any Other Drawn Shape, Show Immaturity, And A Desire For Attention. Jayne Mansfield, A British Movie Star Of Old, Dotted The “I” In Her Name With A Heart Shape! It Is Very Common To Find Drawn “I”-Dots In The Writing Of Teenage Girls, And Sometimes They May Be Embellished To Form A Happy Face Or Some Sort Of “Picture.”
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Liz Eagles 13.04.15 9:17

Richard IV wrote:
aquila wrote:
PeterMac wrote:And that photo became the two posters we believe were photocopied on the machine in the main reception.
That would account for the transformation from 6x4 into A4 format with the wording scribbled badly onto the backing sheet.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
It wouldn't take a mastermind to trace the person who scribbled on the back of the A4 poster. This isn't imo the handwriting of a Brit - see the lower case letter 'a' for starters and then look at the way in which the lower case letter 'i' has a circle instead of a dot above it. This is hybrid writing. IMO it's someone who has been educated in UK and is used to writing in Portuguese.

ETA: This writing belongs to a woman imo.

Circles instead of a dot above the i = immaturity and attention seeking

"Dots That Are Drawn In A Circle, Or Any Other Drawn Shape, Show Immaturity, And A Desire For Attention. Jayne Mansfield, A British Movie Star Of Old, Dotted The “I” In Her Name With A Heart Shape! It Is Very Common To Find Drawn “I”-Dots In The Writing Of Teenage Girls, And Sometimes They May Be Embellished To Form A Happy Face Or Some Sort Of “Picture.”
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I don't wish to detract from the original topic but ages ago I scrutinized the Tapas Bar sheets. I have no idea where to find that topic. I think Clay might be able to help find it so that this thread can continue on topic.

by **PeterMac** 13.04.15 9:31

For a missing child poster these are both totally inadequate.
Surely given this task one would
Use block letters (motorway lettering)
Put slightly more information
Make it clear who to contact
Ask people to ask their friends
and so on

Or did the person / persons who made these posters also KNOW that she would never be found ?

And why would the posters not be in the same aspect, photo on the right, wording on the left, so that the two backing sheets can be put on the photocopier in the same way
to generate as many copies as necessary.
Interesting that ROB seems to think the photo was the iconic Red Dress one, not this polkadot one.
Did he ever in fact SEE the photo. Did he select it from those available on the camera ? If so, how ?
And how did the image get from the camera memory chip to a USB stick - if it did.
Or did AT have a memory chip reader with a USB connector - as I do.
If so she doesn't mention it.
And did she 'dock' her Kodak camera so they could then scan through the available photos before choosing the ~~worst~~ best one. We are not told. She says she went back to he apartment to collect the 'printer', . . . not printer, leads, card reader, USB cable, and camera, and spare pack of photo paper and ink cartridge.The printer itself has a carrying handle (look it up on Amazon ) but this lot would need a blue tennis bag to transport
And how far away was her apartment ? How long did this trip take her.
She says in v. 2 it all happened around 2400.
ROB, trip home, trip back, set up and print 30 copies (45 mins) without the lapse of any time
"Whoosh". Just like that !

by rustyjames 13.04.15 13:34

PeterMac wrote:
However, the aspect ratio of said photo is wrong for the Canon which is the camera from which allegedly the photograph was copied. So we still don’t know where the photo came from. We do know that it did not come from the Canon as stated in the rogatories. Neither do we know how it got onto the USB stick or even if there was one that evening.

When I've got a bit more time I need to read through all of Tigger's posts, but I personally don't think anything can be inferred from the aspect ratio, (1888 x 2350), stated in one of the AFP versions of the photo. It's certainly a cropped version of the original as can be seen from the versions below, and it looks to possibly have been scanned.

The first image below doesn't match the 15x10cm (6"x4") ratio of the paper used, so is also cropped as is evident from the second one below which is reported by AFP as being on a shop window on the 4th May, and has the least cropping that I've seen, possibly uncropped, (although remember if the aspect ratio of the original is different to the paper in the printer, either some cropping of the image will occur during printing, or white bands at the top or the sides will be added, so once again hard to infer anything without the original).

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

by lj 13.04.15 14:38

aquila wrote:
PeterMac wrote:And that photo became the two posters we believe were photocopied on the machine in the main reception.
That would account for the transformation from 6x4 into A4 format with the wording scribbled badly onto the backing sheet.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
It wouldn't take a mastermind to trace the person who scribbled on the back of the A4 poster. This isn't imo the handwriting of a Brit - see the lower case letter 'a' for starters and then look at the way in which the lower case letter 'i' has a circle instead of a dot above it. This is hybrid writing. IMO it's someone who has been educated in UK and is used to writing in Portuguese.

ETA: This writing belongs to a woman imo.

I don't think the a or the circle above the i have anything to do with writing in POrtuguese. They are more the thing you see in girlish handwritings all over the world.