Re: Amy Tierney and those mysterious 6" x 4" photos - Extracts from the research thread on 3As

[AndyB]

PL – Yes, totally em this, this suggestion that they're not. I read headlines in the UK this morning arrests imminent … complete nonsense em the, the Met cannot make and I am sure they're not even claiming, they can't come into Portugal to make arrests mm you'll remember we had a situation like this 2, 3 months ago where there was mass coverage and they were arriving to make arrests and it just petered into nothing, there was nothing it was just a regular visit. Em we had a situation where er the Met stated that the police, the Portuguese police had not told them about a Cape Verdian who apparently was accused of three rapes of children and yet we had it directly from the police that in fact they had briefed the Met and the McCanns 6 months earlier in Lisbon even with a power point presentation on this case so these things don't do an awful lot to help relations and uh lets see what happens. Uh as I say I am very surprised there is no coverage at all not from any of the major dailies here in Portugal this morning and they are extroadinarly well connected much so than us ourselves of course. Just no mention at all.

Rachel – (interrupts) as you say we'll wait to see what happens. Thank you very much Paul, nice to talk to you. "

Note the bit in BOLD

Depressing isn't it

[Woofer]

Hi AndyB - I didn't actually write the post - I just copied over what Gillyspot had transcribed from the interview. 

[Newintown]

We will have to agree to disagree.  I still have faith that SY are working with the PJ behind the scenes, they cannot all be blind to what is staring them in the face. 

"There is none so blind, as those who will not see".

I understand what you’re saying to me Tony, but you don’t have to shout.  I’m not deaf or blind.

I have my opinion, you have yours.  I cannot see – or hope I’m not being naïve – that SY would cover up the death/disappearance of a nearly 4 year old child and would lick the backsides or kiss the feet of the parents of that child to the point that they are fawning over them and even go on holiday to PDL with the parents for the 7th anniversary; parents who may have been responsible for the death/disappearance of their own child.

What a kick in the teeth that would be for the memory of Madeleine, a small child tossed aside like rubbish so that SY can bring a swift closure to the case by inventing a dead paedophile patsy and therefore proclaiming that the McCanns aren’t responsible at all even though they admitted to leaving the doors open in the apartment; throwing aside the evidence of Eddie and Keela and even the evidence that PeterMac and others have worked hard on and sent themselves to SY, all of which is being ignored in your opinion.  Would any PJ officer who had a small child want that to happen to their child?  I doubt it very much.  As one officer said to a poster who telephoned the SY office (sorry I can’t remember which poster that was) that they had a small child and could understand the feelings of the public with regard to the investigation.

What if a whistleblower came forward in a year or so after the case was closed to say that it was all a cover up, what would SY look like then and then there’s the McCanns and their Tapas friends, they would all be open to prosecution on a huge scale.

Imagine being a family member, friend or neighbour of Andy Redwood who all may be trawling the internet to look for details on the investigation and they come across this website stating that AR and SY are trying to cover up the disappearance of Madeleine and AR and SY are doing their utmost to exonerate the parents from any involvement in her disappearance and are desperate to find a patsy, any patsy will do apparently.   If I was his wife I would be horrified at having to go to the local supermarket showing my face to friends and neighbours or even his children (if he has children) must be under pressure at school by anyone of their friends whose parents have been discussing the case and searching the internet for details.

The McCanns have a lot to answer for in their quest to make £millions out of their dead or ”allegedly abducted “ child.  They and their Tapas friends have destroyed many, many lives over the past 7 years; I hope they (and their families and friends) can live with themselves knowing what trauma they’ve brought to so many innocent people.

[G1]

I was a lot confused by this midnight photos with Amy Tierney situation, but it may make sense in a simple way.

Russell O'Brien did not have a memory card, and was not looking for a USB stick memory card reader, as AT says she inserted his USB stick into her personal printer.

He had a memory stick. These USB drives connect directly with computers and printers, and do not need a separate "USB stick reader".

So, it is possible that Ro'B just meant he was looking for a computer or other hardware that would allow printing, such as a copier - printer, that had a USB data reading port.

Re. AT's printing a photo from her Pictbridge USB port in her Kodak printer. Others have said she could not choose the photo, and only the first photo would be printed. 

1. Maybe that's just what happened, maybe Ro'B made the photo the first, or even only one on his memory stick. He may have thought he was going to hand his USB drive to unknown people and leave it, so may have cut and paste his personal things onto his laptop, leaving the stick free but for a photo. Perhaps he had a new USB memory stick, or a few, and copied the photo onto one. Prepared against possible file confusions. This makes sense. Obviously, the photo still came from Kate's camera. What AT as a member of staff would be asking was - is this a known, recognised photo by the parents you want to print out, would they agree with having this photo of their daughter used? So the answer that it comes from the mother's camera itself is the sensible reply.

2. I don't know about the Kodak machine, but other Pictbridge printers without photo preview screens can work by allowing a printout of thumbnails of all the photos first. Subsequently, you key the number corresponding to the photo you want in the thumbnail printouts, and select how many copies of it you want and print that selected photo.

[G1]

... Which is not to say there weren't pre-printed photos before 3rd May, from UK, Portugal, even the Tapas Bar office, using Ms Tierney's printer but earlier. The nature of not knowing means one may guess or estimate,  but ought to remember that the possibilities go on and on, and perhaps the most likely is what was claimed. Perhaps not. I just wanted to point out, though, that it is possible, fully, that the midnight photos meeting between AT and Ro'B may easily make full sense as in the statements, though omitted for a long time. There isn't any real evidence to suggest photos of the little girl were prepared earlier. Fine to bring up the possibility, and strangeness of AT thinking it important a long time later to talk about it, but not to talk about the night of disappearance just after the time in police statement. That is strange, but that's all there is there - that strangeness and a possibility, again, among many when unknown.

Putting this with other things, though, and, like so much in the situation, it begins to niggle so much. For example, unexplained earlier in the night, some people insisted there was a fuss about an abducted child in the same hotel over half an hour before the supposed discovery at around 10 p.m.

I know we want to relate things that may be unrelated as they're already related to us in their strangeness and either being wrong or seeming to obscure something else.

[tigger]

@G1

The statements do not add up at all, whichever way you look at it.

The only way to make it all come out to: no prepared photos on the night' is by 're-interpreting' some of the statements and ignoring:
The fact that the said photos were not on the camera
They had no laptops with them
The coloboma was photoshopped in (see their own statement that it was practcally invisible)
The fact that the printer disappeared soon afterwards
The fact that Tierney said it was around midnight
The fact that ROB states it was well before the PJ arrived which was midnight
The fact the the GNR were thus handed photographs long before they were allegedly printed (GNR statements)

Add to that the number of photos allegedly printed - around thirty or forty according to Tierney
This alone would have exhausted a portable colour printer, would have taken a long time to print, up to an hour if not more.
Add to that that logically a recent photograph from the holiday should have been on the camera and used


The  photo of the night is not the only questionable image of Maddie, within days more were published which can be demonstrated to have been manipulated. This raises many questions, not least about the intelligence of both those who distributed these images as well as those of the public who do their best to make the facts fit the McCann version of events.

[G1]

Sorry. I forgot to add another possibility which I'd thought of. It's being a bit wild, but possible. This is the time around when the group may have thought they needed to delete the call records on mobiles. Some memory card reader - USB sticks will read many types of memory card, including phone SIM cards. Ro'B was asking for a vague piece of equipment, giving a reason about printing photos, when the OC main offices were printing or to be printing lots on quite a lot of printers. (Does someone know what time the main office printers were printing photos at / by?)

So, mobile calls were deleted from handset built-in memory, as far as I am aware (from reading). Whyever that was. It's not too much to wonder if there was any reason for someone to be looking for a memory card reader in a USB stick which may read SIM cards. For some further deleting. AT went ahead with the printing as Ro'B did have a USB stick with a photo to print on it. For this possibility, now the strangeness of Ro'B searching for something with the name "USB stick reader" might seem more relevant. 

I said it can all make easy sense. He was searching for a computer or printer. But, are there really likely to be laptops / desktops in 2007 without even one USB port? My 1998 desktop, not an expensive one, had 2 or 3 USB slots. A laptop I've had from around the same time or pre-98, not an upper market one, had a USB port. My low priced 1999 Canon printer and scanner were both connecting via USB, cables supplied back then. Would Ro'B be looking hard in case of finding old computers which had not a single USB port? It is possible. But seems stranger now, than it did.

So, still possible. And strange. A "USB stick reader". (When he allegedly carried a ready USB stick, not requiring an adaptor.) Someone asking for that is someone who, it happens, won't be thought to be looking particularly for a memory card adaptor (that may be found also to work in reading & editing SIM cards.) Yet, if someone has that lying around it may be offered.

I don't know. Again, it can make sense, and the statements say, though not from the time, Ro'B got his photos printed thanks to AT.

[G1]

Thanks for the clear summary, Tigger. That's much clearer than wading through the early pages in this thread.

[figaro19]

how the photos arrived on the usb key? pictures on the camera memory card in! 
(sorry for my bad english) 

[G1]

I have no source but I'm certain I remember that the OC offered the parents / group use of a computer the night of May 3rd. I understood that reception brought a laptop along,

Also, with things being literal, members of the tapas group may well have had a netbook, or, being doctors, a good PDA with photo file storage and transfer facility, if not a tablet. (PDAs were often v similar in capability to tablets 6 or 7 years ago.) But not listed it as "laptop PC". When you think about it, how likely is it that these busy consultants etc. would NOT have a single PDAwith them? They just keep a filofax at home and another in their office? It's not likely they would all be without one. This is a guess, but it makes sense.

I don't know, but here may be where photos were transferred, USB cable from camera to PDA or whatever, then memory stick from PDA.

This guess is as good as many. I suppose.

Or wouldn't it have been picked up on by those who suspected them - the PJ? Were the PJ querying that the group had digital photos when they should not have gotten them off the camera? Did I miss that?

Look, it's not hard anyway. I suppose the OC reception lent a laptop for a while. Also, any neighbour could have lent a laptop or netbook or tablet. The world and his wife of the vicinity went through 5A that night, it was reported. It's less suspicious in this part to think the group could have gotten photos from camera to USB stick.

Also, another fine possibility. The OC reception were printing Madeleine photos, some from computers. So isn't it possible or likely the group could have asked for, or been offerred a USB stick with photos from Kate's camera, using a reception computer? 

Simply the group just had to ask, knowing that (whatever happened) they would need an easy to use piece of equipment with photos on it, for the next day. They needed to get big poster photos printed, if the young girl was to be still not around. Though it may not be recorded, it's as likely this happened on the night of the 3rd, as after.

So, it wasn't recorded, probably other than "we got the photos printed" or similar. (I have a bad memory when it comes to all the details from the statements I've read or scanned through.) But, beyond R'oB's strange term "have you a USB stick reader" when he had a USB stick, and that AT omitted the situation for so long, in itself I think there's not much to be suspicious of. I mean of that, in the unique circumstances, these people managed to get photos from camera to portable digital storage, with the many possibilities. It's straightforward - many easy, clear, normal possibilities.

In fact, there would be something very, very, very strange if these people had not managed to do this, when a little girl had disappeared and the hours grew. (Again, whatever happened to Madeleine McCann.) People have been getting bogged down in some details.

[tigger]

To save quoting and indeed reading your long post G1,  you state in the first sentence that you have no source.

You appear very keen to find a way to find an innocent explanation. However, it appears you can only do this without giving sources and a magic laptop  which does not appear in any of the statements and also by ignoring the signed statements from those concerned as well as the follow up reports from the PJ regarding the photo paper used and availability thereof and the location of this apparently well travelled printer which was - imo rather curiously - lost in Switserland after having travelled with Ms. Tierney to PdL.

Based on the evidence it is most likely that those particular photographs were printed elsewhere and a good deal earlier than the night of 3/5.  

So I'm afraid I have better things to do.

[G1]

What I've been doing, Tigger, all I've been doing, is exactly what you've been doing, but from a uni-rational, open minded, logical, deductive position.

You make your suggestions. You, of course, have no source for your claim that the photos were most likely to have been ready and waiting, printed in advance. Or even that the group certainly didn't quickly borrow a laptop,  certainly didn't have a single PDA, or that the OC reception certainly didn't simply hand them a USB stick with their selected photos. I have no source for deductions I make, other than good sense potential explanations.

When some things aren't known and can't be known from the facts, when what may seem like really trivial details to people giving statements have, naturally not been included in every point possible. Tigger this is really not good evidence for a strong conclusion that your suspicions are right. These statements were not and would not be made to order for you, to confirm or dismiss just what you feel like supposing. You ought to realise that, that in the real world everything that is not set out in short sentences like for a child's book does not mean that it is rational to conclude a conspiracy.

Yes, the photos may have been printed in advance. But not only is there no source or any serious evidence for that, it is the more ridiculous possibility from the existing evidence. It's just one possibility, and from what's available in evidence specifically, the lesser likely possibility.

You're not helping your own theory by supersizing and entrenching your own lack of ability to examine in a rational, detached fashion.

I wrote:

"In fact, there would be something very, very, very strange if these people had not managed to [get photos somehow from camera / older memory card to storage device when much printing needed to happen soon, through borrowed laptop, PDA or OC reception helping], when a little girl had disappeared and the hours grew. (Again, whatever happened to Madeleine McCann.) "


This is really basic, blatant, MOST simple common sense in analysis, whatever happened to AT's printer some time later. But tigger replied:


"So I'm afraid I have better things to do."


Than listen to any really, really obvious discrediting of the reasoning behind your details of your theory?


Oh. I understand it may not be pleasant for you when, not only are statements written for your ready to take-off mind (with conspiracies), but someone bothers to point out how rational explanations are by far, by far the more likely explanation. Do you have psychic knowledge others don't have, is that how you know? For your arguing is leading nowhere.


Again, it is a possibility that the photos were printed in advance. But, while I'd have liked some intelligent discussion, it seems now that you, Tigger, are far from the best person to convincingly expound this theory you like. You're digging its grave, instead, for open minded people who like to value rational argument and deduction. Sure you can go on ranting, but those who favour the rational above all will know what the rants amount to.


The thing is, when this theory of conspiracy involving AT with Ro'B DOES remain a possibility, it probably deserves some better treatment when a plausible explanation instead can be presented reasonably as far more likely.


Again, my own feeling is that if the AT, R'oB photos situation really did happen, it would be more likely to suggest incrimination of the group, rather than cover something up. From the angle of this would be the time when some people in the group, maybe beyond the McCanns, maybe the McCanns, were concerned with mobile call records. While you can delete from phone handset memory easily, some phones / networks can keep some call data on SIMs, which need a SIM editor or computer plus SIM reader to edit. The strangeness of the term "USB stick reader" rather than PC or Pictbridge printer also is more significant with this possibility.

[Inspector Clouseau]

There seems to be a lot of confusion around how the prints could have been printed. Whilst the Kodak Easyshare G600 has a dock which can only be used by Kodak cameras, the printer does support the PictBridge standard. This means any camera which also supports Pictbridge can print to the printer and you can even use the cameras screen to select which photos you wish to print.

The Olympus C50-Zoom doesn't support PictBridge (it's an old camera from 2002), but the Canon A620 does (it's a newer camera introduced in 2005). 

The PictBridge connection uses a USB port on the printer end, so you would have to have a USB (printer) to MicroUSB (Canon camera end) cable, but I think these came with the cameras, as this is what you would use to connect the camera to your PC.

So it would be easy to print from the Canon directly to the printer, and you could even select which picture you wanted to print.

If you had access to a PC, there are a number of options :
1) Connect either camera via USB cable, the camera effectively appears as a Hard drive, and you could copy the pictures to a USB memory stick (which you would then plug directly into the printer). Note this method doesn't require any software to be installed on the PC

2) If you didn't have a cable, then the PC might have a SD card slot (they were available on some PC's back then), and you could take the camera memory card directly out of the camera and insert it directly into the PC. This only works for the Canon. The Olympus uses a different memory card format (xD card), and this type of slot wasn't available on PC's.

If they had access to a PC in an office, then I would be surprised if a USB memory stick wasn't available, they were cheap and always useful for moving files around in any general office environment.

If I had access to a PC, camera, cable and a USB Memory stick, I doubt it would take more than 15 minutes, to plug the camera in, download the photos, select the one I wanted, transfer to USB stick and clear up files afterwards. 

Additionally, if I transferred the photos directly from the camera to the USB stick, there wouldn't be any record of the photos left on the PC.

[PeterMac]

There seems to be a lot of confusion around how the prints could have been printed. Whilst the Kodak Easyshare G600 has a dock which can only be used by Kodak cameras, the printer does support the PictBridge standard. This means any camera which also supports Pictbridge can print to the printer and you can even use the cameras screen to select which photos you wish to print.

The Olympus C50-Zoom doesn't support PictBridge (it's an old camera from 2002), but the Canon A620 does (it's a newer camera introduced in 2005). 

Except that the poster photo was probably taken on the Olympus - or another camera with a pixel "aspect ratio ' of around 1888 x 2350

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />
The Canon has a ratio of 3072 x 2304    Far larger.

[TheTruthWillOut]

There seems to be a lot of confusion around how the prints could have been printed. Whilst the Kodak Easyshare G600 has a dock which can only be used by Kodak cameras, the printer does support the PictBridge standard. This means any camera which also supports Pictbridge can print to the printer and you can even use the cameras screen to select which photos you wish to print.

The Olympus C50-Zoom doesn't support PictBridge (it's an old camera from 2002), but the Canon A620 does (it's a newer camera introduced in 2005). 

Except that the poster photo was probably taken on the Olympus - or another camera with a pixel "aspect ratio ' of around 1888 x 2350

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />
The Canon has a ratio of 3072 x 2304    Far larger.

I just checked the settings in both cameras manuals and neither have an option to take pictures at 1888 x 2350.

[Inspector Clouseau]

The Olympus is a lot older camera and has a maximum resolution of 2048x1536, which is smaller than the file size listed (2350x1888). It is possible to make photos larger using extrapolation but you usually do this if making really large prints designed to be viewed from a distance. This is because you lose quality with extrapolation as the software has to "invent" the extra pixels.

The Kodak Easyshare G500 is only a small thermal printer printing at 6" x 4" at a maximum of 300DPI, so I think it's less likely to have been enlarged. 

If it hasn't been made larger then it could only have come from the Canon, where the maximum resolution is 3072x2304. I'm inclined to believe it's been cropped rather than enlarged as the aspect ratio doesn't match the cameras. Both the cameras are 1.33 (divide the large figure by the smaller), whereas the image is 1.24

If this is the correct printer model, then it's only printing 6" x 4" prints (postcard size), I think the 15x10 size is in cm (as Portugal uses the metric system), which coincidentally matches the 6"x4" size of the printer. This printer is specified to produce a print in 60 secs, so printing 30, would have taken at least 30 minutes.

[G-Unit]

David Payne said (my bold);

we were trying to convey that she's been abducted and we, we got a computer err printer, we'd got a picture of Madeleine so that it could be distributed as quickly as possible


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

[G-Unit]

Amy said;

When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware, which could read from memory sticks.


She went to her room and returned to the Tapas with the printer where she printed out 20 to 30 photographs of the girl, using her own paper, in 10x15 format mentioned previously. The memory stick containing the photos belonged to the McCann couple, and came from their camera.

She thinks that all of this took place at about 24.00 on 3rd May 2007. She presumes that she handed all of the photos to Russell, who distributed some to those present, the rest would be for the police authorities.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



Russell said;
1578    “Okay.  So ‘We tried to find a picture of Madeleine’'”
 Reply    “Yeah”.

1578    “’Kate’s camera was checked’'”
 Reply    “Umm, ‘And Kat or one of the other Nannies went to their flat to retrieve a printer or something that would connect to a printer and then the pictures were printed in the office off the small reception portal’, there’s a little office in there”.

1578    “Okay.  But ‘Kate or one of the Nannies’'”
 Reply    “Yeah, ‘Kat or one of the Nannies’, I mean, Kat was there and Leanne was there, but whether it was actually their printer or lead, I’m not sure. 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Neither C(K)at or Leanne mention this as far as I know.

[rustyjames]

It's probably been pointed out before, but the picture on the poster a few posts back from AFP was a cropped version.

This from a shop window on the 9th May ...

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

[Ayniia]

The fact that Tierney said it was around midnight
The fact that ROB states it was well before the PJ arrived which was midnight
The fact the the GNR were thus handed photographs long before they were allegedly printed (GNR statements)

Amy said;

When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware, which could read from memory sticks.


She went to her room and returned to the Tapas with the printer where she printed out 20 to 30 photographs of the girl, using her own paper, in 10x15 format mentioned previously. The memory stick containing the photos belonged to the McCann couple, and came from their camera.

She thinks that all of this took place at about 24.00 on 3rd May 2007. She presumes that she handed all of the photos to Russell, who distributed some to those present, the rest would be for the police authorities.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So why (IIRC Jez wife was the one that said this,someone correct me if I'm wrong) when the GNR officer went to their (Jez) apartment at around 1AM looked at their daughter picture and asked if that was the girl they were looking for? (or something similar)???

IMHO all this printing pictures is just another very disturbing red flag. It's 11pm in a tiny village, a little blonde british child goes missing and people are printing posters?For what? Wouldn't it be sufficient to say at least at that moment the general description of Madeleine to the people walking the streets searching? Well maybe not because in Mc's world there were possibly hundreds of little girls like that walking around alone at that time of the night and people needed a picture to figure out who of them they were looking....seriously

[G-Unit]

The McCanns and friends wanted pictures because they expected the police to use them to identify Madeleine who had been abducted, She wasn't wandering around Praia da Luz she was in someone's house, boat or car racing for the border. They knew she had been taken because of the windows/shutters (Kate) and the closed gates on the steps (David Payne);

I was just saying well what was the state of those two gates, were those gates open when you went up or were they shut, and she was adamant that those two gates were shut. Well you know there was two possibilities, she'd either been taken or she'd wandered off, no child is gonna wander off and shut two gates behind them so at that moment I knew, although I didn't want to believe it, but I knew that she'd been abducted. 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[Ayniia]

The McCanns and friends wanted pictures because they expected the police to use them to identify Madeleine who had been abducted, She wasn't wandering around Praia da Luz she was in someone's house, boat or car racing for the border. They knew she had been taken because of the windows/shutters (Kate) and the closed gates on the steps (David Payne);

I was just saying well what was the state of those two gates, were those gates open when you went up or were they shut, and she was adamant that those two gates were shut. Well you know there was two possibilities, she'd either been taken or she'd wandered off, no child is gonna wander off and shut two gates behind them so at that moment I knew, although I didn't want to believe it, but I knew that she'd been abducted. 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

You're right. Dang I always forget St. Kate's words: they've taken her! (or something like that)

[G-Unit]

Yes, open window/shutters, closed gates - it was obvious, to them, that she had been taken. Strangely, the only person who saw the open window/shutters was Amy Tierney. Amy was one very helpful Nanny that night.

[j.rob]

Yes, open window/shutters, closed gates - it was obvious, to them, that she had been taken. Strangely, the only person who saw the open window/shutters was Amy Tierney. Amy was one very helpful Nanny that night.

Maybe Amy Tierney was/is a 'key' player? 

And why on earth should the Mcs and their friends distribute a photo of a girl looking much younger than Madeleine who was nearly four when allegedly abduction? Plus a girl with a coloboma. When Madeleine McCann didn't have one?

Or was it simply because 'it was a good marketing ploy' and the Mcs knew Madeleine McCann would never be coming back and would never be found either dead or alive?

Or was it because they never thought that details such as Madeleine's passport information (which states quite clearly that Madeleine merely had 'specks' in the iris and does not mention a coloboma) would not be made public? Was that one of the reasons why Madeleine's medical records were kept so secret? 

But that once made public they were forced to backtrack. 

Plus perhaps also mindful of the very negative comments made when Gerry said that the coloboma was 'a good marketing ploy'. Even though Portuguese police said it could be Madeleine's death sentence.

Says it all, really. Madeleine was a good marketing ploy and money-spinner.

So sad.

[G-Unit]

I wonder how Amy was able to see the open windows/shutters? Gerald McCann says he shut them almost immediately. Fiona Payne didn't see them, but according to Amy she was there when Amy arrived. Well, I assume that's who the female friend was;

She confirms that, on the night of the disappearance she was on duty and immediately went to the bedroom to see if the girl was hiding. She saw that the shutter was raised and that the window was partially open. It was then that she began to look in the wardrobes to see if the girl was hiding.............when she arrived both the parents and a female friend of theirs whose name she does not know, were there ................The witness remembers that upon entering the bedroom at the time of the disappearance, she saw that the bed that the two babies were sleeping (reparou que a cama que os dois bebes encontravam-se a dormir) and she saw that the bedclothes of the bed near the window were rumpled as if someone had been sitting there, that the bedclothes of Madeleine's bed had been pushed back and that on top of the bed was a small child's blanket and a cuddly toy.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


So, either Amy or Fiona lied about the window/shutters. 

[j.rob]

Well, it was too dark for them to go out searching for Maddie so what else could they kill time doing?

Ripping out the covers of Madeleine's 'Activity Sticker Book' and making up two separate false timelines of what didn't happen happened that night?

Indeed.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
“Prior to the PJ arriving at 12:40/12:50 Russell O'Brien has written the timeline for them all, including, ‘Jane tanner sees stranger walking carrying child.’ He does this while Gerry McCann sits at the same table. At three o' clock in the morning Jane Tanner informs Gerry McCann for the first time, about the existence of a possible abductor.”

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

Interesting how the 'time-line' does not mention the Gerry + Jez Wilkins encounter outside apartment 5A after Gerry had allegedly checked on all three of his children at some time shortly after 9pm. As seen by Jane Tanner.

[Inspector Clouseau]

I've been doing a bit more research on this and have an update. In short you can't print from the Kodak Easy Share G600 printer via a USB memory stick UNLESS you have a kodak camera connected. The user manual available at: 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
states this quite clearly "IMPORTANT:You can only print pictures from a USB flash drive if your camera is docked.", and there's a nice picture showing the camera (which must be a Kodak) being docked.

This means there are only two possible ways they could have printed from this printer :
1) From the Canon A620 via PictBridge. 
This would have required a USB cable (full size connector one end for the printer, and a micro size connector for the camera). This cable would have come with the camera but is a fairly standard cable.

2) Connecting the Printer to a computer
This first requires you to install the Easyshare software on the computer.
Then you would have to have the pictures on the computer either by plugging in a USB stick or connecting the camera to the computer via USB.

So you cannot print from either the Olympus C-50 or a USB Stick without the use of a PC.....

[worriedmum]

Well, it was too dark for them to go out searching for Maddie so what else could they kill time doing?

Ripping out the covers of Madeleine's 'Activity Sticker Book' and making up two separate false timelines of what didn't happen happened that night?

Indeed.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
“Prior to the PJ arriving at 12:40/12:50 Russell O'Brien has written the timeline for them all, including, ‘Jane tanner sees stranger walking carrying child.’ He does this while Gerry McCann sits at the same table. At three o' clock in the morning Jane Tanner informs Gerry McCann for the first time, about the existence of a possible abductor.”

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

if this doesn't sum up the entire FARCE in a nutshell. nothing does. Scotland Yard, hello?

[Mirage]

Those time lines on the sticker book cover are simply jaw-dropping. That Tanner stated she couldn't  bring herself to mention her sighting for fear of upsetting Kate further , then let all those tapas group go running off in wrong directions like "headless  chickens" (by their own account) is nonsense.

As soon as a connection was made anyone would scream out: Hang on. I saw a man with a little girl. He went that way! You wouldn't have to think about it.

[Silentscope]

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

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

Someone decided to call Amy Tierney at home in the U.K. from the Dolphin Restaurant pay phone.

I suspect that a Message was passed by a route that would not be easily seen by the PJ and the Photos of Madeleine were pre - ordered.

This would allow plenty of time to have them Printed and ready to hand out when the PJ arrived at the OC, as the Printer was very slow.