Re: Was the "Last Photo" taken on the FIRST Day?

by Joannep43 16.07.15 16:00

I don't know if this has been mentioned before but I have noticed a similarity with the last photo and the photo of Madeleine exiting the Wendy house in PDL.That similarity is her hair.I noticed that in both of these photos her fringed is clumped together and one side and her hair falls under slightly with a wispy strand on one side.I would conclude that if her hair had been brushed / washed in between these photos her hair would look slightly different. I don't have the technical ability to put these two photos together.Its just my observation ,if that helps.

by TheTruthWillOut 16.07.15 18:36

Verdi wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:@Verdi.

The email seems to have been written by someone that also isn't too savvy when it comes to computers with the request of having Hampshire email video footage (even just 10 minutes if edited first). Today's email uploads are generally limited to just 25MB and probably 10MB in 2007. Even an edited 10 minutes of MiniDV footage would be ~2GB!

I hear what you're saying Verdi but even by my standards, that is some cynicism!

Maybe Mr Foster only mentioned the video footage when he talked to LP. When PC Barham went to collect the footage he may have seen the camera or the PDL pictures on the computer and asked to take them too? Or Mrs Foster offered the camera? That's just one scenario though. Granted, it is odd that the email does only mention video footage and DC Martin drops the camcorder off at the imaging unit but there is nothing in the files I've seen that the PJ received a copy of that
footage like they did with the pictures.

Also I would think the Fosters have checked out the PJ files like others and would have protested if anything was wrong?
Oh yes, I was born cynical but I don't think my cynicism is the issue here - unless it's leeched through from the sub-conscious .

I'm not meaning to be unreasonably contrary but this just doesn't make sense to me, no matter how I try I cannot see the issue as clear cut. It really would be appreciated if someone could direct me to the thread on this forum where it's been discussed in-depth, I'd like to read how others interpret the detail - if for no other reason than to clear my muddled head. As I say, so far I've never been offered an explanation to prove me wrong, only continuous declarations that I am wrong, if you get my drift

Limited time 'n all that, not very good at navigating the forum so please don't tell me to use the search facility.

Been thinking about this for a couple of days and think the issue you have with this is:

The initial email from LP only, and specifically, talks about video footage. Only DC Martin conducts his expertise on the Fosters still camera. The video camera is dropped off at the imaging lab at 08:30 am on the 9th May by him.

The Sony Handicam, AFAIK, is not mentioned again.

The PJ only acknowledge receiving a CD of photographs on the 23rd May. Did the PJ not question where the video footage was? Or did they have it and just don't mention it?

May be the video footage is part of the missing files?

I'm not aware of a dedicated thread on this issue but if someone thinks it worth creating a thread on this subject, I'd be up for the discussion. Many questions that's for sure.

by thingy 28.08.15 7:19

Steve Marsden: Evidently Gerry McCann hates wearing sunglasses.
Analysis of photos of the McCanns in May 2007 shows that he only wore sunglasses on 2 confirmed days and 1 alleged day.
Gerry is only seen wearing sunglasses when he wears the same shirt he wore sat round the pool in what the McCann Clan claim is the last photo of Madeleine.
How bizarre that Gerry should have the sun in his eyes for most of May 2007 but only wear those sunglasses with the same t-shirt and shorts.
Kate thought it very important to mention the sunglasses. In her book she wrote about buying the sunglasses on the afternoon of Tuesday May 1, 2007.
Here's what Kate wrote in her book:
Having polished off her ice-cream, Madeleine asked if she could go back to Mini Club now, please. So much for extra family time! Before heading up the road, we stopped at a shop on the corner of Rua da Praia and Avenida dos Pescadores, one of several open-air, market-style stalls, as Gerry needed a pair of SUNGLASSES. A couple of the women who worked there were sitting by the stall, admiring and making a fuss of the children, who responded quite happily. These ladies were warm and friendly, this is the kind of thing that happens every day, especially in southern European countries, and I only remember it at all because of what subsequently happened.
I think her account was to reinforce the last photo "alibi" and I think Gerry only wore the sunglasses when the last photo was being taken. In other words, not on May 3, 2007.

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

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

I thought PeterMac said it was cloudy all week?

by skyrocket 28.08.15 8:11

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

The cloudy week was from 28 April - 4 May (the week of the Mc's holiday). This, I believe, is the week PM refers to.

From recollection, the only really decent sunny day was the 29 April (Sunday). This is when many think the 'last photo' could have been taken.

Looks like the weather improved considerably in the week after (the photos you have posted).

by **tigger** 28.08.15 9:46

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

gets you into the site when can then be searched extensively in all directions.

See also: Socratic questioning of the Last Photo - fytton.blogspot.nl 9th August.

(I don't look at it that often (no internet at home) so please comment here?

Wouldn't it be very useful to find a photograph WITH sunglasses to give us a date? Kate has provided us thoughtfully with a date of purchase for some reason.
If he did have these sunglasses and hasn't worn them since, well - he does look pretty naff in those.. look like women's glasses to me.

Btw. just had a mail from someone who is having a holiday there and says that PdL is such a very small place for an abduction to take place at the best of times. Although there's always the lawless hinterland....

by **PeterMac** 28.08.15 10:10

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

by pennylane 28.08.15 15:04

I would think the 'no sunglasses' situation, after the catastrophe, was due to them not wanting to look 'shady' or as if they had something to hide! As simple as that and nothing to do with the weather (imo).

by **tigger** 28.08.15 15:23

pennylane wrote:I would think the 'no sunglasses' situation, after the catastrophe, was due to them not wanting to look 'shady' or as if they had something to hide! As simple as that and nothing to do with the weather (imo).

I've not seen him with sunglasses in any other photograph - not old ones either. Clearly a special reason to put them on - to tell us how hot it was or perhaps he had a black eye? laughat

All that matters is that the photo wasn't taken at the time stated, a time stated very precisely too. That has a wealth of meaning on its own imo.

By the time this photo was produced the PJ had already asked inconvenient questions about the last time Maddie had been seen that day and the photograph didn't solve that problem - what the PJ may also have asked is why there were so few photos of Maddie on the DVD discs they got from Gerry and Michael Wright on the 9th of May. No family photographs of the McCanns at all, a few purporting to be of Maddie, but not the tennis photo neither the pool photo - it was a selection of photos mainly from the cameras of the other Tapas members. Many of those were groups or parents and children. But not of the McCanns.

by **PeterMac** 28.08.15 16:17

tigger wrote:
By the time this photo was produced the PJ had already asked inconvenient questions about the last time Maddie had been seen that day and the photograph didn't solve that problem - what the PJ may also have asked is why there were so few photos of Maddie on the DVD discs they got from Gerry and Michael Wright on the 9th of May. No family photographs of the McCanns at all, a few purporting to be of Maddie, but not the tennis photo neither the pool photo - it was a selection of photos mainly from the cameras of the other Tapas members. Many of those were groups or parents and children. But not of the McCanns.

There is also no evidence that the Last Photo was ever handed to the PJ.
So far as we can tell it was produced - purely by coincidence, obviously - on the day Gerry returned to PdL with the egregious Mitchell i tow, AND Philomena, (wife of a skilled photo-shopper and keen amateur astronomer) arrived, by coincidence later that evening.
By the following day the photo was in the hands of the AFP, and was released the the fanfare of nonsense about the time (- look at the time - look over here ) meaning look at the date on 24th.
So far as I am aware this photo does not feature in the PJ files. But if anyone knows different that would be interesting.

by **PeterMac** 28.08.15 16:25

Thingie
The longer quote is even more interesting

In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach. To be honest, I think they’d have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us. We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie. The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain. A bit of rain is not something that bothers a Scotsman like Gerry, but Sean and Amelie didn’t like the feel of the wet sand and insisted, in the way two-year-olds do, on being carried.
Our trip to the beach wasn’t exactly a roaring success and the kids certainly weren’t thanking us for it. Still, we made the best of it, and the suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces. The children and I sat down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them. The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for, I was momentarily torn. Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time.
How could I balk at leaving the kids to run a few yards for ice-creams and feel comfortable with the child-checking arrangement we had at dinner? I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction. Perhaps in my subconscious the prospect of three active children squabbling, hurting themselves or being hurt by somebody else in a public place in the middle of the afternoon rang more alarm bells than three sleeping children, safely tucked up in bed, being checked on regularly. If the fear of abduction had ever entered my head it would have been in the former situation.
Having polished off her ice-cream, Madeleine asked if she could go back to Mini Club now, please. So much for extra family time! Before heading up the road, we stopped at a shop on the corner of Rua da Praia and Avenida dos Pescadores, one of several open-air, market-style stalls, as Gerry needed a pair of sunglasses. A couple of the women who worked there were sitting by the stall, admiring and making a fuss of the children, who responded quite happily. These ladies were warm and friendly, this is the kind of thing that happens every day, especially in southern European countries, and I only remember it at all because of what subsequently happened.

It is cold and raining, and had been cold and overcast for two days, and this was clearly going to continue for a few days more - - - but we are told he bought sunglasses ! ¿ Que ?

by pennylane 28.08.15 16:49

tigger wrote:
pennylane wrote:I would think the 'no sunglasses' situation, after the catastrophe, was due to them not wanting to look 'shady' or as if they had something to hide! As simple as that and nothing to do with the weather (imo).

I've not seen him with sunglasses in any other photograph - not old ones either. Clearly a special reason to put them on - to tell us how hot it was or perhaps he had a black eye?

All that matters is that the photo wasn't taken at the time stated, a time stated very precisely too. That has a wealth of meaning on its own imo.

By the time this photo was produced the PJ had already asked inconvenient questions about the last time Maddie had been seen that day and the photograph didn't solve that problem - what the PJ may also have asked is why there were so few photos of Maddie on the DVD discs they got from Gerry and Michael Wright on the 9th of May. No family photographs of the McCanns at all, a few purporting to be of Maddie, but not the tennis photo neither the pool photo - it was a selection of photos mainly from the cameras of the other Tapas members. Many of those were groups or parents and children. But not of the McCanns.

Hi tig

lol, a shiner you think? big grin

I agree we haven't seen G in sunglasses prior to the catastrophe, and I explained why I thought he may not have worn them afterwards. The prior pictures we've seen of G are mainly indoor ones, or not in a sunny situation perhaps, so not necessarily a big deal. The Mc's may not wish to share certain other pictures, as is their prerogative. If we had lots of before and after holiday shots, maybe I would flag the sun glass issue up, but thus far I haven't seen any reason.

A further point is they may have been selective with M's pictures (possibly) due to her looking puffy eyed, ill or tired, which they feared would exacerbate suspicions she was sick or drugged? Just because we haven't seen other pictures, doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist.

I personally don't agree with the photo shop theories at all, but I do think it possible the last photo was not shot at the time claimed.

by sallypelt 28.08.15 16:57

PeterMac wrote:Thingie
The longer quote is even more interesting
In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach. To be honest, I think they’d have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us. We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie. The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain. A bit of rain is not something that bothers a Scotsman like Gerry, but Sean and Amelie didn’t like the feel of the wet sand and insisted, in the way two-year-olds do, on being carried.
Our trip to the beach wasn’t exactly a roaring success and the kids certainly weren’t thanking us for it. Still, we made the best of it, and the suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces. The children and I sat down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them. The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for, I was momentarily torn. Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time.
How could I balk at leaving the kids to run a few yards for ice-creams and feel comfortable with the child-checking arrangement we had at dinner? I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction. Perhaps in my subconscious the prospect of three active children squabbling, hurting themselves or being hurt by somebody else in a public place in the middle of the afternoon rang more alarm bells than three sleeping children, safely tucked up in bed, being checked on regularly. If the fear of abduction had ever entered my head it would have been in the former situation.
Having polished off her ice-cream, Madeleine asked if she could go back to Mini Club now, please. So much for extra family time! Before heading up the road, we stopped at a shop on the corner of Rua da Praia and Avenida dos Pescadores, one of several open-air, market-style stalls, as Gerry needed a pair of sunglasses. A couple of the women who worked there were sitting by the stall, admiring and making a fuss of the children, who responded quite happily. These ladies were warm and friendly, this is the kind of thing that happens every day, especially in southern European countries, and I only remember it at all because of what subsequently happened.

It is cold and raining, and had been cold and overcast for two days, and this was clearly going to continue for a few days more - - - but we are told he bought sunglasses ! ¿ Que ?

As someone mentioned earlier (sorry, can't remember who it was) Kate could have made a big issue of the sunglasses because if the "last photograph" was taken on the Sunday, but was being passed off as being the last, then the sunglasses would HAVE to be bought AFTER the Sunday for the story to have any credibility.

by aiyoyo 28.08.15 16:59

tigger wrote:I've not seen him with sunglasses in any other photograph - not old ones either. Clearly a special reason to put them on - to tell us how hot it was or perhaps he had a black eye?
All that matters is that the photo wasn't taken at the time stated, a time stated very precisely too. That has a wealth of meaning on its own imo.

By the time this photo was produced the PJ had already asked inconvenient questions about the last time Maddie had been seen that day and the photograph didn't solve that problem - what the PJ may also have asked is why there were so few photos of Maddie on the DVD discs they got from Gerry and Michael Wright on the 9th of May. No family photographs of the McCanns at all, a few purporting to be of Maddie, but not the tennis photo neither the pool photo - it was a selection of photos mainly from the cameras of the other Tapas members. Many of those were groups or parents and children. But not of the McCanns.

Strange to be on family holiday and having hardly any family photos apart from the one taken at the pool.

You'd think even if the McCanns didn't take any other family photo, their friends would have other group photos showing if nothing all the children playing together and having a good time.

Tennis photo is that of Madeleine alone - where were the rest of the children?
Doesn't make sense Madeleine was the only one hanging around the Court collecting balls on her own, as a child always like to do things with their friends, never alone on her own.

Also it seems strange that their friends have no photo of Madeleine on holiday that could be circulated immediately on discovering she was lost to aid the search. Instead a much younger and chubbier Madeleine was hastily printed and circulated for the search. Where did this photo come from? as in which camera?
The last photo released a few weeks late into the disappearance is so surreal.

You'd think that when people are on group family holiday, at least one of them in the group with have photos, if not of every adult and child in the group, at least have taken photo of all the children enjoying themselves with their friends, after all that's one of the reasons to bring children when your friends are also bringing theirs. It's something to look back on and reminiscent on for the adults as well as for the children when they are old enough to appreciate value of photos.

by **PeterMac** 28.08.15 17:45

sallypelt wrote:
It is cold and raining, and had been cold and overcast for two days, and this was clearly going to continue for a few days more - - - but we are told he bought sunglasses ! ¿ Que ?

As someone mentioned earlier (sorry, can't remember who it was) Kate could have made a big issue of the sunglasses because if the "last photograph" was taken on the Sunday, but was being passed off as being the last, then the sunglasses would HAVE to be bought AFTER the Sunday for the story to have any credibility.[/quote]

If you go on holiday to the South of Portugal or Spain, do you not TAKE sunglasses with you ?
And even if he didn't, how did he survive the Saturday afternoon and the whole of Sunday without ?
and why not buy them in the supermarket rather than wait four days and buy them in the from a manky stall in the rain ?
And a Medic and certainly a Consultant would want to know that they were decent quality - UV protected, possibly polaroid, not just some chinese rubbish

Sorry, Kate. Trying too hard - again !

by **sharonl** 28.08.15 17:57

PeterMac wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
It is cold and raining, and had been cold and overcast for two days, and this was clearly going to continue for a few days more - - - but we are told he bought sunglasses ! ¿ Que ?
As someone mentioned earlier (sorry, can't remember who it was) Kate could have made a big issue of the sunglasses because if the "last photograph" was taken on the Sunday, but was being passed off as being the last, then the sunglasses would HAVE to be bought AFTER the Sunday for the story to have any credibility.

If you go on holiday to the South of Portugal or Spain, do you not TAKE sunglasses with you ?
And even if he didn't, how did he survive the Saturday afternoon and the whole of Sunday without ?
and why not buy them in the supermarket rather than wait four days and buy them in the from a manky stall in the rain ?
And a Medic and certainly a Consultant would want to know that they were decent quality - UV protected, possibly polaroid, not just some chinese rubbish

Sorry, Kate. Trying too hard - again ![/quote]

Please correct me if I am wrong but didn't Kate claim that they went to buy the glasses on the afternoon that they claimed to have hired a buggy to take the kids to the beach? That same afternoon that the kids were placed back in the crèche immediately after lunch were they stayed until 5.30? I seem to remember her saying the sunglasses sellers made a fuss of the kids.

I just didn't happen really, did it?

by sallypelt 28.08.15 18:00

PeterMac wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
It is cold and raining, and had been cold and overcast for two days, and this was clearly going to continue for a few days more - - - but we are told he bought sunglasses ! ¿ Que ?
As someone mentioned earlier (sorry, can't remember who it was) Kate could have made a big issue of the sunglasses because if the "last photograph" was taken on the Sunday, but was being passed off as being the last, then the sunglasses would HAVE to be bought AFTER the Sunday for the story to have any credibility.

If you go on holiday to the South of Portugal or Spain, do you not TAKE sunglasses with you ?
And even if he didn't, how did he survive the Saturday afternoon and the whole of Sunday without ?
and why not buy them in the supermarket rather than wait four days and buy them in the from a manky stall in the rain ?
And a Medic and certainly a Consultant would want to know that they were decent quality - UV protected, possibly polaroid, not just some chinese rubbish

Sorry, Kate. Trying too hard - again ![/quote]

But could it be that Kate is trying to say that Gerry didn't have sunglasses until he bought a pair AFTER the Sunday, when so many people are convinced that Sunday is the day that the "last photograph" was taken. So if he didn't have sunglasses on the Sunday, then Kate can argue that the photograph could NOT have been taken on the Sunday because Gerry didn't have sunglasses until the Monday.

by pennylane 28.08.15 18:55

If G left his expensive sunglasses at home he probably wouldn't want to buy new ones, but may have given in and got some cheap ones that he saw nearby. The answer could be as simple as that.

by aiyoyo 30.08.15 9:14

pennylane wrote:If G left his expensive sunglasses at home he probably wouldn't want to buy new ones, but may have given in and got some cheap ones that he saw nearby. The answer could be as simple as that.

If the poolside photo was taken on first day and not the 3rd, then it could well be he brought the cheapo looking sunglasses from home; and apart from using it on that day when the sun was overhead, never had the weather occasion to use them again. He does not appear to the sunglasses type. There aren't many (if any at all apart from the pool pic) photos of him wearing sunglasses in photos that were released in public domain.

For Kate to dedicate a whole page of her bewk to the incident of the purchase of the sunglasses at the beach from a make shift stall there must be a significance. Their children were left in creche everyday of their holiday. The only pocket time that the beach outing could be done would be during lunch respite in between the two-session creche. What are the chances of them taking their grumpy children to the beach on a bad weather day? No one is to know if the outing took place at all?

Maybe the whole incident is a total fabrication, done for a reason.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.08.15 9:28

aiyoyo wrote:
pennylane wrote:If G left his expensive sunglasses at home he probably wouldn't want to buy new ones, but may have given in and got some cheap ones that he saw nearby. The answer could be as simple as that.

If the poolside photo was taken on first day and not the 3rd, then it could well be he brought the cheapo looking sunglasses from home; and apart from using it on that day when the sun was overhead, never had the weather occasion to use them again. He does not appear to the sunglasses type. There aren't many (if any at all apart from the pool pic) photos of him wearing sunglasses in photos that were released in public domain.

For Kate to dedicate a whole page of her bewk to the incident of the purchase of the sunglasses at the beach from a make shift stall there must be a significance. Their children were left in creche everyday of their holiday. The only pocket time that the beach outing could be done would be during lunch respite in between the two-session creche. What are the chances of them taking their grumpy children to the beach on a bad weather day? No one is to know if the outing took place at all?

Maybe the whole incident is a total fabrication, done for a reason.

I think aiyoyo's analysis is far more likely than pennylane's. The convoluted explanation from Dr Kate McCann about Gerry buying sunglasses later in the week, when (as PeterMac has researched so thoroughly) the weather had already become cloudier and colder, simply doesn't ring true.

Just one small point, the thread title is a bit misleading as the evidence of PeterMac and others clearly pointed to the 'Last Photo' being taken on the second day, i.e Sunday 29 April, probably around the time when the sun was at its zenith, which was around 1.35pm that time of year.

The purchase of the sunglasses 'a total fabrication'?

Well, there most certainly are a whole host of fabrications in this case.

Probably many more than we think... winkwink

by Angelique 30.08.15 13:00

PeterMac wrote:Thingie
The longer quote is even more interesting
In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach. To be honest, I think they’d have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us. We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie. The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain. A bit of rain is not something that bothers a Scotsman like Gerry, but Sean and Amelie didn’t like the feel of the wet sand and insisted, in the way two-year-olds do, on being carried.
Our trip to the beach wasn’t exactly a roaring success and the kids certainly weren’t thanking us for it. Still, we made the best of it, and the suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces. The children and I sat down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them. The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for, I was momentarily torn. Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time.
How could I balk at leaving the kids to run a few yards for ice-creams and feel comfortable with the child-checking arrangement we had at dinner? I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction. Perhaps in my subconscious the prospect of three active children squabbling, hurting themselves or being hurt by somebody else in a public place in the middle of the afternoon rang more alarm bells than three sleeping children, safely tucked up in bed, being checked on regularly. If the fear of abduction had ever entered my head it would have been in the former situation.
Having polished off her ice-cream, Madeleine asked if she could go back to Mini Club now, please. So much for extra family time! Before heading up the road, we stopped at a shop on the corner of Rua da Praia and Avenida dos Pescadores, one of several open-air, market-style stalls, as Gerry needed a pair of sunglasses. A couple of the women who worked there were sitting by the stall, admiring and making a fuss of the children, who responded quite happily. These ladies were warm and friendly, this is the kind of thing that happens every day, especially in southern European countries, and I only remember it at all because of what subsequently happened.

It is cold and raining, and had been cold and overcast for two days, and this was clearly going to continue for a few days more - - - but we are told he bought sunglasses ! ¿ Que ?

Red highlights.

Sorry OT I know and I think it has been mentioned before but I just think it stands out so much.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.08.15 13:13

Angelique wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Thingie
The longer quote is even more interesting
In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach. To be honest, I think they’d have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us. We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie. The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain. A bit of rain is not something that bothers a Scotsman like Gerry, but Sean and Amelie didn’t like the feel of the wet sand and insisted, in the way two-year-olds do, on being carried.
Our trip to the beach wasn’t exactly a roaring success and the kids certainly weren’t thanking us for it. Still, we made the best of it, and the suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces. The children and I sat down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them. The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for, I was momentarily torn. Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time.
How could I balk at leaving the kids to run a few yards for ice-creams and feel comfortable with the child-checking arrangement we had at dinner? I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction. Perhaps in my subconscious the prospect of three active children squabbling, hurting themselves or being hurt by somebody else in a public place in the middle of the afternoon rang more alarm bells than three sleeping children, safely tucked up in bed, being checked on regularly. If the fear of abduction had ever entered my head it would have been in the former situation.
Having polished off her ice-cream, Madeleine asked if she could go back to Mini Club now, please. So much for extra family time! Before heading up the road, we stopped at a shop on the corner of Rua da Praia and Avenida dos Pescadores, one of several open-air, market-style stalls, as Gerry needed a pair of sunglasses. A couple of the women who worked there were sitting by the stall, admiring and making a fuss of the children, who responded quite happily. These ladies were warm and friendly, this is the kind of thing that happens every day, especially in southern European countries, and I only remember it at all because of what subsequently happened.

It is cold and raining, and had been cold and overcast for two days, and this was clearly going to continue for a few days more - - - but we are told he bought sunglasses ! ¿ Que ?

Red highlights.

Sorry OT I know and I think it has been mentioned before but I just think it stands out so much.

by **PeterMac** 30.08.15 13:38

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

And here is the cloud cover

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

Quick buy some cheap sunglasses !
I think not. Trying far too hard to fill in the gaps.
Ce qui s'excuse, s'accuse !

by Carrry On Doctor 30.08.15 14:13

Snipped...

.....as Gerry needed a pair of sunglasses. A couple of the women who worked there were sitting by the stall, admiring and making a fuss of the children, who responded quite happily. These ladies were warm and friendly,.......

Was the sunglasses story ever corroborated ? These ladies would have been easily traced I would have thought, particularly as they would likely have come across 3 freezing cold children, probably the only children out on such a cold day ?

Also, totally agree with PM's comments about the over emphasis put on how them being a party of 5. Red flag.

by aiyoyo 30.08.15 15:42

Perhaps in my subconscious the prospect of three active children squabbling, hurting themselves or being hurt by somebody else in a public place in the middle of the afternoon rang more alarm bells than three sleeping children, safely tucked up in bed, being checked on regularly. If the fear of abduction had ever entered my head it would have been in the former situation.

To me, the alarm bell is in the above paragraph, in the three active children vs three sleeping children. What was her sub conscious actually betraying her?
Were there really three sleeping children? Why the particular need to emphasize the exact number vs just the children in general?
Or were there just two remaining ones left in 5A that night, or were the two even there in 5A that night at all, or elsewhere in someone else's apartment?

The sub-conscious has an innate ability to bring up the unspeakable. Was she sub consciously over compensating for those things she hides the truth but desperately wants to convince people her lies being the true.

Was she trying to show her mother instinct to protect her children, or was she desperate to emphasize there were three sleeping children, when the fact is something else?

Here, Kate is definitely trying to impress her readers on her maternal instinct vs her parenting responsibility and emphasizing the children number for a reason.

It's not normal for people to be SO paranoid about leaving their children momentarily (mere seconds) in day light especially when their children are still within easy supervision sight and distance.
So this nonsense about having to tear herself away from her children momentarily for fear they might squabble or hurt themselves etc is a load of tosh. Who ever heard of parents never leaving their children alone to play among themselves in the garden, in the house, or even in friend's house, or even public places so long as they are within hearing and checking proximity. No parent keeps their eye fixated on the children all the time no matter where the children be.

Also dragging three unwilling to go to the beach and particularly grumpy about the outing children to buy sunglasses on a bad weather that didn't call for the need of sunglasses is all very weird.

by **PeterMac** 30.08.15 15:48

And a husband who cannot hold five ice-creams at once . . . !

by aiyoyo 30.08.15 15:51

PeterMac wrote:And a husband who cannot hold five ice-creams at once . . . !

Or couldn't make it two trips ....to collect them....

by **Tony Bennett** 30.08.15 16:37

PeterMac wrote: Trying far too hard to fill in the gaps.
Ce qui s'excuse, s'accuse !

He who pays the paper, calls the tune...

Sharon Leal, an up-and-coming expert in techniques of lying, wrote in the Daily Mail in 2010 that one of the key ways to spot a liar was if their story was 'far too detailed':

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

How to spot a liar: Their story is far too detailed to be true

By [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
16:18, 29 September 2010

If someone starts explaining why they were late by giving you an intricate, blow-by-blow rundown of what exactly held them up, be warned: that person is probably lying.

A researcher into insurance fraud said today that liars give themselves away by thinking too hard about their story.

Sharon Leal, a research fellow at the University of Portsmouth, examine how people behave when they make fraudulent insurance claims.

Ricky Gervais stars as Mark in The Invention of Lying - a man who tells the world's first lie. A researcher has discovered that people who lie tend to overelaborate.

The expert in detecting deception says her research has shown that liars make extensive plans before they lie, but that truth-tellers do not plan their story.

She explained that because liars need to think about their plan when being questioned, this puts a large load on their brain which in turn affects their behaviour.

She said it is these changes which are most likely to form the basis of new investigative methods designed to spot the cheats.

Dr Leal said: ‘There is a real need to use evidence-based methods that are scientifically proven to work to stop wasting insurance companies' time and money and to stop innocent people being treated as suspects while the guilty get away.’

She explained that an insurance company's investigation into a claim could be triggered for a range of reasons, including a large claim on a new policy, or the investigator having a gut feeling that something does not add up.

She said that a common trigger for an investigation is when the claimant cannot recall specific details surrounding the incident, such as what the other person was wearing or how many people were in the vicinity at the time.

Dr Leal said: ‘Insurance fraud has been on the rise since the recession began and insurance companies are very keen to find a way of beating those who cheat.

‘There is a saying, 'needs must when the devil rides', which basically means when times are tough, people are more likely to break the rules. That is certainly true in the case of insurance fraud.

‘People think if they are telling the truth it will shine out, but it doesn't.

‘Insurance investigators waste time and money when they chase innocent people.

‘Under these circumstances some innocent people withdraw their insurance claim because they can't cope with the stress of being investigated.’

Dr Leal said that many current techniques and lie-detector gadgets are unreliable.

She said: ‘Contrary to popular belief, motivated liars do not fidget, avert their gaze or blink nervously. They are usually calm and have planned their lies down to the last detail.

‘Also, many people do not see anything wrong with making a false claim and if they don't feel nervous or guilty, it follows that the techniques that rely on these factors will ultimately fail.

‘Even the majority of experts overestimate their ability to spot a lie.

‘They might as well toss a coin in the air, their record of finding the cheats would be the same at about 50-50.’

Dr Leal, has been awarded a £112,000 grant by a leading insurance fraud investigation firm to study lying.

She hopes that by studying liars in laboratory conditions she will be able to identify the real clues that give them away when making false insurance claims.

She is spending her first year studying what investigators do and how often their methods are successful and her second year trialling new methods and testing the results.

+++++++++++++++

Two years later, Sharon Leal was chosen to front a series of programmes, the first of which was: 'Episode 1: The Lying Game - Crimes That Fooled Britain' - a very short of extract of which can be seen on this short 33-second clip of the McCanns: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

At the end of the clip, she proclaims the McCanns '100% innocent'.

I wonder if by any chance her opinion might have been influenced by the fact that the series was commissioned and produced by Shine TV? Why do I suggest that?

Because money talks...

...because Shine TV is part of Shine Group, whose Co-founder and Chairman is Elisabeth Murdoch, married (well, was married) to Matthew Freud, for whom Clarence Mitchell once worked, and of course the daughter of arguably the world's most influential media mogul, Rupert Murdoch.

I wonder who arranged that little programme?

by notlongnow 30.08.15 16:49

At around 15 min 10 secs

by sallypelt 30.08.15 16:53

Snipped from Tony's post:

"The expert in detecting deception says her research has shown that liars make extensive plans before they lie, but that truth-tellers do not plan their story".

What I found very strange was why Gerry McCann needed a script to read from, the night? that Madeleine went missing.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.08.15 17:40

sallypelt wrote:What I found very strange was why Gerry McCann needed a script to read from, the night? that Madeleine went missing.

It was the following night, Friday 4 May.

In 'madeleine', p. 94, Dr Kate McCann puts it like this:

"Gerry told the people assembled in the apartment* what he was intending to do. Nobody objected or advised him against it - but then, there was no-one taking control of the situation, other than Alex Woolfall, whose primary role was to act for Mark Warner. So Gerry sat down and drafted a statement on a piece of scrap paper. It took him only a few minutes".

* Dr Kate McCann lists these on page 93:

Kate's mother
Kate's father
Auntie Norah
John Hill (Ocean Club)
Emma Knights (Ocean Club)
Craig Mayhew (Mark Warner)
John Buck (British Ambassador)
Bill Henderson (British Consul)
Angela Morado
Liz Dow (British Consul from Lisbon)
Andy Bowers (British Embassy press officer)
Alex Woolfall (Bell Pottinger)
Alan Pike ('Trauma counsellor', Centre for Crisis Psychology, Skipton)
...and maybe some other that she can't remember