Re: FIRST photo

by **Jill Havern** 01.07.15 21:12

Whatever happened to this discussion about the First Photo?

Peter? Tigger?

by **PeterMac** 01.07.15 22:04

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Whatever happened to this discussion about the First Photo?
Peter? Tigger?

It is being conducted in private, between people who have specialised knowledge, deal in facts, and can control their emotions !

EDITED TO ADD . . .

As incidentally is a lot more about this case. Much of what is finalised and agreed upon after rigorous analysis by those concerned, and after proper referencing,
is then submitted to the PJ, to GA, and to Grange.

One day it may come out.

by **tigger** 02.07.15 10:19

Re the printer paper discussion. I'm pretty sure the item(s) in the cupboard are videos. Iirc the TV appears to have a video slot which is visible on some photographs.

In my opinion the 'abduction' wasn't meant to run for as long as it has done. I feel the initial plan/concept was that it would run for about 5/6 months or so in the media. It would be interesting to know when exactly Bell Pottinger got their half a million to keep the case on the front pages for a year.
Something changed early on and it may well have been the internet explosion of 50 million views. That may have turned TM's heads. Never mind the world, let's go for the entire Milky Way!

So as far as the photographs go, they could have been part of the initial publicity push and following that, the parents would have been the news, working for charities, European representative for Amber Alert, working tirelessly for all missing children in the world. At one point - certainly once they'd been made arguidos imo - it all turned back to Maddie.

So I'd imagine that there wouldn't be that many photographs of Maddie needed in the early days, The coloboma was the key ingrediënt in any photo: coloboma = Maddie. So by adding one small black stripe/dot almost any suitable baby or blondish child was identified as Maddie.
If anyone wants to lift the coloboma (The logic gates) post from my blog you're welcome. I only run the blog to put information and references in one place, I do not use cookies, make no money of the blog. It's for general information.

I still think the first photograph looked most like the girl the nannies thought was Maddie. Imo the playground photograph isn't Maddie. The last photo does show Maddie but imo at about 3 yrs old. That's just an opinion, I might be wrong or right, either way it is a step nearer the truth.

FIRST photo

Re: FIRST photo

Re: FIRST photo

Re: FIRST photo

Log in for more topics