Re: 'The Last Photo': The key questions

by ROSA 06.08.11 12:11

The last lie ? i dont think so nails

by Guest 06.08.11 12:48

It certainly is weird if none of the clothing which appears in the photos was ever located and tested. I can remember seeing a photo (not sure if it was on this site) of the pink jacket hanging over a chair in the apartment so, assuming that the photo was genuine, that item did exist and was available for DNA testing and for tracker dog purposes.

by lj 06.08.11 13:22

Indeed weird, especially considering the fact the McCanns worked so hard to help the PJ.
In spite of their grief they immediately washed and ironed (or rather had them washed and ironed) every single piece Madeleine ever had worn, so the PJ could work with fresh, clean smelling material. Even the British ambassador pitch in and made sure this could happen ASAP.

And those Portuguese tracker dogs: shows what a sardine muching failure they are, they could not even track Madeleine from pieces material she never touced.

Oh yes Carter Ruck, part of this is meant sarcastic.

by Angelique 06.08.11 19:27

I think Kate also did a bit of recycling did she not - with Amelie wearing Maddie's pj's and sandals.

by ROSA 07.08.11 1:42

Yes she did Angelique

by ROSA 07.08.11 3:22

So kate is not so sad its ok Amelie has them now never mind

by joan thomas 10.08.11 16:18

Does anyone know if anyone had searched the cliff sides and shore line in Praia Da Luz since June 6th 2007?

by joan thomas 10.08.11 16:30

On August 6th 2007 the Daily Mail published a photograph of Madeleine and her right eye is as clear as glass

NO DEFECT what so ever, Story headline Murat in the clear.

by LG78 11.08.11 22:39

I havent gone through all the messages, so maybe someone mentioned this before. But look

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

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

The clothing, the same as arrival date. And that girl next to Madeleine, thats not her sister ? Defently the same girl on both pictures . Because if you see her sister on the "last" photo by the pool, she is almost white blond and younger ??

by ROSA 11.08.11 23:17

The first poster of Madeleine produced and distributed around Praia da Luz on the night of her disappearance.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

by **tigger** 12.08.11 7:07

ROSA wrote:The first poster of Madeleine produced and distributed around Praia da Luz on the night of her disappearance.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

This one was not printed but photocopied at MW as I recall. Again these doting parents have at least two images of their daughter aged about 3 with them on holiday.
In an official report on the iconic photo I read that it was ROB who came to MW to have it printed off with the McCann's USB stick.
The printer was capable of printing it off, however, with a USB stick no images of what was to be printed will appear on the screen since it was Kodak easyshare the lcd image only worked with kodak cameras.
So now we have a 'blind' printing of at least several but I think she said she printed 30 to 40. The PJ tracked all the photographic suppliers in PdL, none of them sold or used that brand of paper.
As I pointed out elsewhere, the coloboma had to be already photoshopped in. That is really pushing in a two hours window.
By the way re the 'last photo', the time can easily be changed with a software programme. Not too difficult. But Michael Wright is an IT specialist, so if help was needed I would think he would oblige.

by Guest 12.08.11 9:17

Hello LG78, yes it's certainly a job and a half to read through all the postings here. I believe that it was claimed that the three children in the playground photo are those of the McCanns but maybe that's just an error in the media. Unless the child with her back to the camera is wearing a wig, it's not Amelie. I think that she could be Jane Tanner's elder daughter who is very close in age to Madeleine. Have you seen the very strange footage inside the airport bus where both Madeleine and the child to the right look unnaturally still? It used to be said that the camera never lies but, in these high tech days, it certainly does now!

by LG78 12.08.11 11:33

tigger wrote:
ROSA wrote:
juliet wrote:Yesterday at 10.55 Rosa kindly posted a photo which the McCanns say was taken at Christmas 2006.

From the very beginning of this case, I have found it impossible to believe that if this child is Madeleine, her short bob could have grown to the below shoulder-length hair of the child in the Everton shirt photos.

If someone tells me, yes, a child's hair can grow six inches in four months, well OK.

Also - can that little girl at 2006 Christmas really be the tennis court Madeleine as claimed?

There are so many questions about the photos the McCanns have produced.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
How did Madeleine grow so big in 4 months ? it seems that the McCanns have the only child in the world that can i agree with juliet

I so agree. The Everton photo is shopped, blow it up as much as you can and you see the face almost floating on top. Other signs, impossible angle head/neck, ghost line along left arm, blur on left cheek and blur on left elbow. Didn't want to miss out on the footie angle, public memory of Soham (from where I think they got the ££££££idea).
Her hair length and height go up and down like a yo yo. Is there someone in the Irish family who looks a lot like M? Quite possible.

And the back of Maddie her? I know shes bending a little, but still, her back has this very big hump ? Her body just looks so veired compered to the other pics of her. Its probably just is the way she stands , lifting her shoulders makes the back sticking out, but still, somethings fell not right about this...

by Guest 12.08.11 11:38

Hi LG,

The bump on the back is the hood I think.

by ROSA 12.08.11 11:43

A dead Maddie in the PDL photos
this is not Maddie
why? no PDL photo of Maddie in Kates book

by LG78 12.08.11 12:38

candyfloss wrote:Hi LG,

The bump on the back is the hood I think.

Hood what hood? shes wearing aT-short and no hoods on that one.. ( if I understand the word Hood right, since im not English ) :)

by Guest 12.08.11 12:41

LG78 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Hi LG,

The bump on the back is the hood I think.

Hood what hood? shes wearing aT-short and no hoods on that one.. ( if I understand the word Hood right, since im not English ) :)

Sorry, I thought you were talking about playground photo. Crossed wires[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by LG78 12.08.11 12:45

candyfloss wrote:
LG78 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Hi LG,

The bump on the back is the hood I think.

Hood what hood? shes wearing aT-short and no hoods on that one.. ( if I understand the word Hood right, since im not English ) :)

Sorry, I thought you were talking about playground photo. Crossed wires[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Ah, no I ment the Tennis court picture :)

by LG78 12.08.11 12:47

Jean wrote:Hello LG78, yes it's certainly a job and a half to read through all the postings here. I believe that it was claimed that the three children in the playground photo are those of the McCanns but maybe that's just an error in the media. Unless the child with her back to the camera is wearing a wig, it's not Amelie. I think that she could be Jane Tanner's elder daughter who is very close in age to Madeleine. Have you seen the very strange footage inside the airport bus where both Madeleine and the child to the right look unnaturally still? It used to be said that the camera never lies but, in these high tech days, it certainly does now!

It is no doubt that the girl next to Maddie is the same in both park and shuttle bus picture. And they are both taken the first day of holliday ( look at clothing). And that rules out the claims that the "last" photo was taken the first day. ( look at message comepring t shirts on Gerry).
Well they had a washing mashine in the appartment and aparently used it. Most people would pack clothing for the whole week, but since they where 5 people they probably didnt want to pack that much clothing...

by **tigger** 12.08.11 17:13

LG78 wrote:
Jean wrote:Hello LG78, yes it's certainly a job and a half to read through all the postings here. I believe that it was claimed that the three children in the playground photo are those of the McCanns but maybe that's just an error in the media. Unless the child with her back to the camera is wearing a wig, it's not Amelie. I think that she could be Jane Tanner's elder daughter who is very close in age to Madeleine. Have you seen the very strange footage inside the airport bus where both Madeleine and the child to the right look unnaturally still? It used to be said that the camera never lies but, in these high tech days, it certainly does now!

It is no doubt that the girl next to Maddie is the same in both park and shuttle bus picture. And they are both taken the first day of holliday ( look at clothing). And that rules out the claims that the "last" photo was taken the first day. ( look at message comepring t shirts on Gerry).
Well they had a washing mashine in the appartment and aparently used it. Most people would pack clothing for the whole week, but since they where 5 people they probably didnt want to pack that much clothing...

I'm quite happy with the bus and the playground, but some photoshopping has gone on there too. The fat man behind the playhouse: his right foot is at an impossible angle to his hip. Try and stand just like him, position one in ballet.
All we really have is two photos of a little girl in a pink outfit. There is no way to say for sure that is Maddie.
What we can be sure of is that the Tennis girl and the Pool girl have a height and age difference which makes it impossible for it to be the same girl, or the same girl taken a year apart.
IMO the pool girl is about 3, the tennis girl looks about 5 to 6.
She is standing in a hunched posture and the angle from above shortens her further. I would normally say if that had nothing to do with M, that she is a fairly tall 6 year old. Maddie's height was given as 90 cm by her parents when she disappeared. Very short for a 4 year old.
The age progression and hair growth of the Christmas 2006 photo to tennis girl doesn't work either.
In the Australian interview Kate described Maddie as such a 'compact' little girl. That is only true in some photographs.

My own thought is this: we get an awful lot of old photographs up to age 3 plus or minus a few months. Then we have the taller Everton shirt, the tennis girl, possibly a few others. We just don't seem to have anything where she actually looks about four. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The twins' ages go up and down as well and in some photo's Maddie looks hardly any older than her siblings.

by Guest 12.08.11 17:43

Tigger, if you're talking about the opening Christmas presents video supposedly taken in 2006, yes I don't think that Madeleine could possibly have grown so much in just over four months. Judging by the apparent ages of all three children I think this video was taken the previous year when they would have been 2 years and 7 months and almost 11 months old. We can only speculate on the reason why there is so much confusion and doubt over almost every image of Madeleine.

by LG78 12.08.11 18:25

tigger wrote:
LG78 wrote:
Jean wrote:Hello LG78, yes it's certainly a job and a half to read through all the postings here. I believe that it was claimed that the three children in the playground photo are those of the McCanns but maybe that's just an error in the media. Unless the child with her back to the camera is wearing a wig, it's not Amelie. I think that she could be Jane Tanner's elder daughter who is very close in age to Madeleine. Have you seen the very strange footage inside the airport bus where both Madeleine and the child to the right look unnaturally still? It used to be said that the camera never lies but, in these high tech days, it certainly does now!

It is no doubt that the girl next to Maddie is the same in both park and shuttle bus picture. And they are both taken the first day of holliday ( look at clothing). And that rules out the claims that the "last" photo was taken the first day. ( look at message comepring t shirts on Gerry).
Well they had a washing mashine in the appartment and aparently used it. Most people would pack clothing for the whole week, but since they where 5 people they probably didnt want to pack that much clothing...

I'm quite happy with the bus and the playground, but some photoshopping has gone on there too. The fat man behind the playhouse: his right foot is at an impossible angle to his hip. Try and stand just like him, position one in ballet.
All we really have is two photos of a little girl in a pink outfit. There is no way to say for sure that is Maddie.
What we can be sure of is that the Tennis girl and the Pool girl have a height and age difference which makes it impossible for it to be the same girl, or the same girl taken a year apart.
IMO the pool girl is about 3, the tennis girl looks about 5 to 6.
She is standing in a hunched posture and the angle from above shortens her further. I would normally say if that had nothing to do with M, that she is a fairly tall 6 year old. Maddie's height was given as 90 cm by her parents when she disappeared. Very short for a 4 year old.
The age progression and hair growth of the Christmas 2006 photo to tennis girl doesn't work either.
In the Australian interview Kate described Maddie as such a 'compact' little girl. That is only true in some photographs.

My own thought is this: we get an awful lot of old photographs up to age 3 plus or minus a few months. Then we have the taller Everton shirt, the tennis girl, possibly a few others. We just don't seem to have anything where she actually looks about four. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The twins' ages go up and down as well and in some photo's Maddie looks hardly any older than her siblings.

I am a Fostermum for a girl thats 2 1/2 year old and she is now 90 cm in hight... And she comes from a rathert shortgrown family.. so 90 cm at 4 years old?? That just cant be right? she sure does look higher than that on the Tennis picture. Tough the angle the photo is taken from may make her look taller than she acually is.. And the bump on her back, looks very odd and big?
The policefiles says shes 90 cm you are [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by pauline 12.08.11 19:29

Does anyone know how tall the Mccanns are? they are certainly not small. its not logical (though not impossible) that they would have a child significantly smaller than the average size for her age. They are after all doctors, and one presumes she was well fed and there would be no reason for her to be small for her age.

by **tigger** 12.08.11 20:38

pauline wrote:Does anyone know how tall the Mccanns are? they are certainly not small. its not logical (though not impossible) that they would have a child significantly smaller than the average size for her age. They are after all doctors, and one presumes she was well fed and there would be no reason for her to be small for her age.

I saw their passports on one of the topics yesterday. We should find out from there!