Re: 'The Last Photo': The key questions

by ProfessorPPlum 12.08.12 21:42

jd wrote:
jd wrote:This poolside pic and tennis girl pics are simply photoshopped and fakes in my opinion. So faked that they were never on their camera in PDL but a different looking Maddie was!

Not a fact but an assumption, you are accusing when it is not a known fact and on record, therefore I have added imo to your statement.

Anyone that knows how to use photoshop knows it is a fact....but fair enough for the terms of the forum

I do know how and disagree with you.

Also you have to think; it's not going to be the McCann's doing this masterpiece of photoshopping is it? So you're saying that the freedom of these two Doctors AND their friends depends ENTIRELY on some young photoshop-savvy friend of the family keeping quiet - for ever? Utterly improbable.

Sorry, can't go for that, no can do. :)

by bobbin 12.08.12 21:54

ProfessorPPlum wrote:
jd wrote:
jd wrote:This poolside pic and tennis girl pics are simply photoshopped and fakes in my opinion. So faked that they were never on their camera in PDL but a different looking Maddie was!

Not a fact but an assumption, you are accusing when it is not a known fact and on record, therefore I have added imo to your statement.

Anyone that knows how to use photoshop knows it is a fact....but fair enough for the terms of the forum

I do know how and disagree with you.

Also you have to think; it's not going to be the McCann's doing this masterpiece of photoshopping is it? So you're saying that the freedom of these two Doctors AND their friends depends ENTIRELY on some young photoshop-savvy friend of the family keeping quiet - for ever? Utterly improbable.

Sorry, can't go for that, no can do. :)

There is masses of information and analysis on threads re the last photo. If you had studied that information you would not be able to state that photo-shopping, whether by McCanns or friend/s would be 'utterly improbable'. The reverse is 'utterly probable'.
For starters, I put lots of information up regarding the weather and the flowering of the bougainvillea. The Last photo cannot be correct because the flowering bracts are in full bloom just a few days after the 'Maddie in the Playground' photo where the plants have barely any leaves or shoots.
Bougainvillea must have a period of extreme heat and dryness to come into flower. The weather in PdL from the Playground photo to the 'Last photo' was cold and wet and the absolute opposite of what Bougainvillea needs to come into flower.
From the Saturday/Sunday of arrival in PdL, to the Thursday p.m. was absolutely NOT enough time or hot weather to enable the difference in flowering to have occurred.
This is quite apart from numerous other inconsistencies in the photo. Please go back over the wealth of info available.

by ProfessorPPlum 12.08.12 22:25

OK, Bobbin & Jd and others - thanks. I'll trawl back over 80 pages again (!) when I can.

Some basics I've got lost on you might be able to help me with, please:

• When was this picture claimed to have been taken?
• Who made that claim?
• Is there evidence for these claims in the police files / statements?

Many thanks

by **tigger** 13.08.12 7:06

ProfessorPPlum wrote:
jd wrote:
jd wrote:This poolside pic and tennis girl pics are simply photoshopped and fakes in my opinion. So faked that they were never on their camera in PDL but a different looking Maddie was!

Not a fact but an assumption, you are accusing when it is not a known fact and on record, therefore I have added imo to your statement.

Anyone that knows how to use photoshop knows it is a fact....but fair enough for the terms of the forum

I do know how and disagree with you.

Also you have to think; it's not going to be the McCann's doing this masterpiece of photoshopping is it? So you're saying that the freedom of these two Doctors AND their friends depends ENTIRELY on some young photoshop-savvy friend of the family keeping quiet - for ever? Utterly improbable.

Sorry, can't go for that, no can do. :)

Actually, the photoshop-savvy friend wasn't that good. The Everton T shirt photo - I mean the one with the darker hair (there are two) very sloppy work but then the photo was published fairly early. To cash in on the Soham link to the public imo.
Imo they had some very good marketing advice at an early stage.
The Everton photo has Maddie's head pasted on - it's too far to her left (I think the same about the tennis ball photo since if that girl stood up straight, she'd be as tall as a 6 yr old but still not have a straight back). The Everton photoshopping is very easy to see, left arm 'ghost line' blurring on the face etc.
I've worked with photoshop and also have taught and do life drawing, nothing is as tricky as getting the head and neck right.
There's another one you might like to look at - the happy family photo in the book, Gerry is standing in front of a picture, Kate is holding baby Madeleine.
Gerry seems to be pasted in together with the picture (nice straight lines).
Don't forget that imo we have strong evidence of photoshopping with the 'coloboma' alone. How could there be a photograph with a coloboma ready on the night of the 3rd? The McCanns themselves have admitted there wasn't one, just a fleck.
Quite a few photographs and some videos had already proved this. In some photos the coloboma isn't in the right place - at six o'clock instead of seven.
So on and so forth.

As another example it seems that Obamas' birth certificate was faked - and badly at that. A discussion I saw about that last year was interesting. These jobs aren't given to experts, because that would be too risky. It's generally given to people who think they're good at it, such as the office boy down the corridor...

by Miraflores 13.08.12 8:31

How could there be a photograph with a coloboma ready on the night of
the 3rd? The McCanns themselves have admitted there wasn't one, just a
fleck.

I don't think that we can take this as an example of photoshopping. In 2007 the McCanns made the Coloboma the centrepiece of their campaign. Only in 2011 did they decide that they hadn't made much of it after all, and that it was a fleck that you would have to be up close to see.

Personally, I think there was something wrong with her eye, and I don't think a coloboma was photshopped in.

As for the 'Last photos' - I don't know whether they were photoshopped or not. I do wonder why they were never used in the bewk, if they really were the last photos.

by Guest 13.08.12 8:36

I think that it's just about possible that the pool photo is genuine as is the tennis ball girl one but not that they could have been taken within a day or two of each other.

Children change and have growth spurts very quickly but not THAT quickly!

by Ribisl 13.08.12 9:16

Jean wrote:I think that it's just about possible that the pool photo is genuine as is the tennis ball girl one but not that they could have been taken within a day or two of each other.

Children change and have growth spurts very quickly but not THAT quickly!

I made a point many pages ago and I still believe that the important issue here is the date and the place the TM are claiming these photos were taken, not whether some bits have been photoshopped in or out. Because they are presenting the 'last photo' as an evidence that she was still around on the 3rd even though there are no reliable eye witnesses to substantiate their claim.

I think the point about the (non)flowering plant several people have mentioned is very relevant. Sunny - but maybe not hot enough to dip in the water - weather too, though we can only speculate on that one. So with this and with the tennis photo, the TM haven't been able to prove to us Madeleine was alive on the 3rd, but it is equally difficult to prove conclusively their photographic evidence to be false.

by Mariita 14.08.12 0:51

Re photoshopping I also wondered whether it's likely or not in some photos. The so called last photo does appear unnatural in some way, I get the same kind of fake-feeling as when I watch an old movie and the surroundings don't match the actors (best example; actors sitting in a car in a filmstudio pretending they're moving forwards in the vehicle), except the 'last photo' on the poolside is still, with fixed positions...

Yesterday I read through the thread 'What was so special about Burgau' which was very interesting. If anyone doubts photoshopping regarding any photo of Madeleine, I recommend to read that thread! In my opinion the most obvious one is the so called ice cream photo. I'm just thinking if one, two or three are manipulated in some way; why would it be so unthinkable when it comes to the poolsidephoto? After all it was mentioned in the swedish interview (Skavlan) by Gerry as the last memory of Madeleine, as to remind any sceptic that this is the proof that she was present the 3d of May. If Gerry had described the circumstances, what they were doing at the time the photo was made and/or activities afterwards, - it would have sounded more natural and even truthful. Merely stating 'the photo' as the last memory is strange.

by **tigger** 14.08.12 6:31

Marita, that's very well observed.
Imo they know something we don't , they've told us a story which on close inspection has little or nothing to back it up.
The pool photo is in their eyes proof positive. Completely and utterly backs up the story.
Yet not available until three weeks after the event. Not on the camera.
Did the PJ at an early stage notice the lack of holiday snaps? Did they ask why?

It's almost like a card trick - guess what - card tricks were Gerry's speciality as a child. (Source is one of the family.)

by **Tony Bennett** 14.08.12 7:08

ProfessorPPlum wrote:OK, Bobbin & Jd and others - thanks. I'll trawl back over 80 pages again (!) when I can.

Some basics I've got lost on you might be able to help me with, please:

• When was this picture claimed to have been taken?
• Who made that claim?
• Is there evidence for these claims in the police files / statements?

Many thanks

Will try to answer the above and also deal with the 'tennis balls photo'.

The CLAIM is that the 'last photo' was taken at precisely 2.29pm on Thusrady 3 May 2007.

The 'date stamp' actually says '1.29pm', but Dr Gerald McCann explained this by the 'fact' that Portugal's time zone is an hour ahead of ours. AFAIK it isn't. The rest of Europe might well be an hour ahead of us, but Portugal and Britain have always been in the same time zone - Greenwich mean time - plus we also have British/Portuguese summer time.

The McCanns' account is that the photo was taken just before Madeleine was returned by them to the creche that afternoon. Thereafter Dr Gerald McCann claims he spent nearly all of the next 4 hours playing tennis, even though according to an article by David James Smith in The Times in December 2007 his 'Achilles tendon' injury was so bad at around 4.30pm that he couldn't play any more.

Never mind the details of whether the photo was photoshopped or not, therte has never been an adequate explanation for the photo not having been produced until two days AFTER Dr Gerald McCann made a trip back to England, around 20th May (not got the exact day).

Why would a photo he had taken in his camera just hours before Madeleine disappeared not be printed off early the following day and circulated. Or the following day? Or the day after that?

And here's another related question. Where are all the other family photos, including photos of the McCanns' children, on holiday that week?

ANSWER: None apart from the tennis balls photo. Which I'll deal with now.

I have one major query about the authenticity of that last photo. At least two (maybe three) people claim to have taken it!

Answering ProfessorPPlum's final question, I think both Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann refer to the 'last photo' in their police witness statements. I don't think anyone else does and AFAIK the police never forensically tested the camera.

by Miraflores 14.08.12 8:34

The 'date stamp' actually says '1.29pm', but Dr Gerald McCann explained
this by the 'fact' that Portugal's time zone is an hour ahead of ours.
AFAIK it isn't.

It definitely isn't, although I think, like us, Portugal has tinkered around with experiments to have Summer Time all year.

Gerry would definitely know that it was on the same time zone, because he would have had to have reset his watch otherwise. It's much more likely that the camera was set to GMT and that had to be put forward manually and no-one did so. I don't with mine always. But why not say so; why give out a piece of information which can immediately be proved to be wrong?

by cath2756 14.08.12 11:01

tigger wrote:
Ross wrote:I don't have any particular view on this per se, but as we know there was high level government support from the very start, the possibility exists that powerful image manipulation software that is not available commercially could have been used. The level of tech available to intelligence agencies is far in front of what we can buy.

Imo the Fund and the publicity needed input from experts such as marketing, advertising and IT.
But again - imo - the photoshopping is mostly very amateur, shoddy jobs. If they were good I would not be able to spot it. I have experience with CS5 photoshop and earlier versions. A much better job could have been done with the widely available technology at the time. So no experts there imo.

The problem is that people see with their brains, not their eyes. This is a problem when teaching life drawing. The same mistakes come out in the photographs - at first glance everything looks OK, because the brain has scanned the database, two eyes, ears, mouth below the nose, fine - it's a face.
But on closer examination one finds the head not connecting to the neck properly (very tricky to do) - the non participation (not looking at the camera) of the pasted face is always a give-away. So on and so forth.
My feeling is that Maddie wasn't beautiful (enough) and that's why there aren't enough photographs of her and most of those had some adjustment, such as getting rid of her baggy eyes. The difference between e.g. the real photo of her going up the aircraft steps and the poster photo is quite noticeable.

A trick when drawing or painting is to turn it upside down and the mistakes are glaringly obvious. The same goes when drawing from a photograph, as in, it's best to turn it upside down as then you are only looking at lines, curves etc. as opposed to trying to do a likeness of a preconceived form. I am no good with technical things but maybe someone could look at the pics in question from an upside down position - the photos that is not the observer [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 14.08.12 12:14

A interesting article about this picture from a blog

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

by jd 14.08.12 17:39

Thereafter Dr Gerald McCann claims he spent nearly all of the next 4 hours playing tennis, even though according to an article by David James Smith in The Times in December 2007 his 'Achilles tendon' injury was so bad at around 4.30pm that he couldn't play any more.

According to Steven Carpenters RI statement in April 2008, which was analysing his original statement back in May (which doesn't seem to have been released):

DCF: So during the week, you played tennis with Gerry about three times'

SC: Ah ha.

DCF: On Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, it says here that you got on well, that he communicated easily, he was fun, he talked to you about golf which was his favourite sport, that he wanted to improve his tennis during the week. On Sunday or Monday he twisted his ankle, but managed to keep on playing, and on Sunday morning he only played tennis with Kate, that you saw them both playing sport and they passed by you to the bar on the beach and this was Sunday or Monday at about mid day.

SC: Mmm, mmm.

gerry mccann statement 10th May 2007

[3rd May 2007] "The deponent and KATE returned to the OCEAN CLUB by the short-cut and at the secondary reception they asked the lady employee if there was a vacant tennis court they could reserve. They were told there was a vacancy between 14H30 to 15H30. As it was already 15h00, they began to play immediately. At 15H30, the tennis instructor arrived, who instructed each of them until 16H30.
----- The stayed in that place, talking, until 16H45 at which time the twins went to the meal area"

No mention of spraining ankles here….

gerry mccann statement 10th May 2007
"After 17H30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. KATE and the children entered by the rear door, after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.
------ That they bathed the children, the deponent having left at 18H00 for a tennis game only for men, at which were: DAN, tennis instructor; JULIAN, with whom he had played tennis several times; and CURTIS, with whom he had also played."

Fit enough to continue playing tennis 90 minutes later......

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

gerry mccann statement 10th May 2007:
"The tennis class finished at 11H15, he stayed in the pool area talking with his wife and other persons, whom he does not remember. At 12H00, together with KATE, as he recalls it, she made lunch and he went to get MADELEINE. He thinks that it was KATE who took the twins home. Since it was he who went to collect MADELEINE, he is sure he used the short-cut.
----- At 12h30 they started lunch, the meal having lasted an hour until 13h30. After that time they made their way to the resort play area, the deponent left by the front door and the rest of the family by the rear door that, once again, he shut and locked from the inside. As to the front door, he does not know exactly if he locked it.
----- That they stayed in the play area for approximately an hour until 14H30/14H35. After that they left the twins next to the creche at the TAPAS, they signed the register and the three (deponent, KATE and MADELEINE) made their way to the creche at the main reception, where they arrived at 14H50 and delivered MADELEINE, not being able to say precisely who signed the register."

Not pool but play area, then straight to creche from the play area....

According to Cat Baker RI April 2008:
"On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. These activities were realized with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. This afternoon we went swimming. Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis. "

If they never went back to the apartment after this photo was allegedly taken & straight to Creche, why does Cat Baker describe Madde wearing sporting clothes and assumed she was practicing some sort of atheletics? Correct me if I am blind, but that pink dress does not look like 'sporting clothes' to me! I never saw Jess Ennis wear a pink looking dress whilst competing in the Heptathlon!

Why was this pink looking dress not seen in any of the apartment photos taken that night? Nor in the cupboards, drawers…not even on the pictures of clothing from the mccanns in the PJ files. Infact neither is what gerry mccann and Amelie wearing in this poolside picture in any of the later PJ file pictures of the apartment nor their clothing

This poolside picture is as fake as a cartoon

by Angelique 14.08.12 18:11

I am not sure but is Cat Baker describing what Kate was wearing?

by jd 14.08.12 19:50

Angelique wrote:I am not sure but is Cat Baker describing what Kate was wearing?

Possibly yes and could interpreted as either or, but to me she is already talking about Madeleine in context so I feel personally it is about Maddie....but I see why she could be talking kate mccann too

by Angelique 14.08.12 22:27

True, true I agree with you.

I seem to remember that there was some suggestion that it would mean that several changes of clothing would have been involved. I think some one commented about this.

by ProfessorPPlum 14.08.12 23:10

I've read this thread and another very very detailed thread about this picture (the one that goes into the angles of shadows etc) and I'm back to square 1: I absolutely do NOT believe that this picture has been photoshopped in any way.

The argument about the shadows being 'faked' is just nonsense. You simply cannot take a picture like this and change all the shadows to try to make them look a certain time of day / position of sun. There are no dodgy edges to arms, sleeves etc. The famous little white / black thing between Amelie's arm and her body, far from being something from a completely different picture in fact follows exactly the curve of OUTSIDE edge of the pool slabs. The grey bit is her shadow and the black bit further back is the only 'unknown' thing and it could be anything at all. But together they DO NOT suggest a paste in from another picture.

I start from a simple place: with my many years of reading images and working with images is there something about this that (conspiracy theory aside) gives me ANY reason to think this picture is faked or doctored? No. The only thing I'm unsure of is the reflection - until I go and do some practical experiments. But until that point I will assume I don't know how to achieve that reflection, not that it is artifice.

I'm sorry but the problem here is that to some of you this picture is the be-all-and-end-all (i.e. if it's faked then they're guilty as hell) and in my view, you're interpreting what you see to fit your hypothesis.

I can't tell you when this picture was taken; I can't tell you why it took them so long to produce it. But I would stake my life on it not being a construct. Like I said, every point that people have raised - bar the glasses and I suspect there is a optical explanation here regarding the circular pool edge - I just do not buy. The fact that some of you (myself included) can make pretty convincing fakes ourselves does NOT prove this is a fake when the evidence before my eyes strongly suggests otherwise.

Here's a challenge for those of you who think you can do this: I'd like you to change the angle of light falling on Gerry's head and torso - because that is what has been claimed has been done - as proof of the fakeness of this pictures, and thereby, the guilt of the McCanns.

by Ribisl 15.08.12 6:51

PPP I don't doubt your expertise. The question is - when was this picture of Madeleine taken (forget Gerry and Amelie for the moment)? If the McCanns can prove this was really taken on the 3rd of May as they claim, then it narrows down the timeline of M's disppearance to the afternoon/evening of that day, rendering many existing hypotheses extraneous. But they can't.

If this picture was indeed taken during the holiday but not on that day, then we need to find out why they should lie about it. Is it because something happened to her earlier and they needed to cover up a certain sequence of events?

If this picture had been edited, then the McCanns would have more questions to answer. Was it
1. to show the image of a happy family having a good holiday when in reality there had been many quarrels and discords between the pair?
2. to pretend they had taken family snap shots when they didn't?
3. to cover up Madeleine's death prior to that date by inventing a photo from that day?

by **tigger** 15.08.12 6:59

The only thing I want to know is how Amelie can be the age she is there compared to Maddie. Maddie definitely looks too small and too young, Amelie is the only one having a defect and very definite blurring which is nowhere else in the photograph.
To me it makes sense to paste Amelie in because that puts the photograph in 2007. Otherwise imo it would definitely be 2006.
The different time also takes care of the hot sun and the flowers. I feel it's the most likely and simplest explanation.

The photograph was not on the camera - i.e. the card which was analysed by the PJ.
It was presented after Gerry had been to the UK three weeks after 3/5.
There is plenty of evidence of manipulation of the non existent coloboma (please see the coloboma topic and videos). Therefore there is evidence of manipulation full stop.
The photograph is so highly rated by the McCanns that they cite it as their last 'memory' of Maddie.
Yet it is not published in the book about Madeleine.
The pink dress is never seen again, nor used by the dogs to trace the girl. Having worn it that day, it would surely have been top choice?
The only clearly visible anomaly on the photo is Amelie's right arm where tell-tale blurring occurs.
Prior to this photograph there were none to 'prove' that Maddie was at PdL on 3/5/2007.
It is the only photograph (the playground one could be any child) with a parent in it.

It is also noteworthy that in the photographic record published so far, there are very few photographs of Maddie with one or both of her parents. As they have continually stressed the 'family' aspect of their existence, why is this not the case?

Kate recalls the pink dress in the book as being apricot coloured, which is what Amelie was wearing in 2007. She actually tells us she should have bought a cardigan to go with it as it was rather chilly. The photograph doesn't convey this and was allegedly taken within a short time after this episode.

In short, I am sure that Amelie is pasted in for the reasons stated above and that the photograph was taken in 2006. With the date/time adjusted in the file- also quite simple to do.
I'm also quite happy for this to have been the only manipulation. In any case the only one that makes sense to me.

by sammyc 15.08.12 9:34

I've mentioned this before Tigger on the Australian Interview topic that Gerry slips up, imo, by saying something along the lines of 'myself and Madeleine'. Surely he should have mentioned Amelie being there if it was his last and most precious image of Madeleine?

Sorry but can someone please move this to the right topic

by **tigger** 15.08.12 9:58

sammyc wrote:I've mentioned this before Tigger on the Australian Interview topic that Gerry slips up, imo, by saying something along the lines of 'myself and Madeleine'. Surely he should have mentioned Amelie being there if it was his last and most precious image of Madeleine?

Sorry but can someone please move this to the right topic

I think it's fine here, I've mentioned the pink dress and no cardigan issue, they support the theory. I think a previous break in PdL isn't that unlikely.
We'd have to have a look at the time when OC was taken over by MW - it's not a closed off area in any case. Nothing to prevent Gerry and Madeleine visiting someone and having a picture taken by the swimming pool.

by jd 15.08.12 10:53

tigger wrote:The only thing I want to know is how Amelie can be the age she is there compared to Maddie. Maddie definitely looks too small and too young, Amelie is the only one having a defect and very definite blurring which is nowhere else in the photograph.
To me it makes sense to paste Amelie in because that puts the photograph in 2007. Otherwise imo it would definitely be 2006.
The different time also takes care of the hot sun and the flowers. I feel it's the most likely and simplest explanation.

The photograph was not on the camera - i.e. the card which was analysed by the PJ.
It was presented after Gerry had been to the UK three weeks after 3/5.
There is plenty of evidence of manipulation of the non existent coloboma (please see the coloboma topic and videos). Therefore there is evidence of manipulation full stop.
The photograph is so highly rated by the McCanns that they cite it as their last 'memory' of Maddie.
Yet it is not published in the book about Madeleine.
The pink dress is never seen again, nor used by the dogs to trace the girl. Having worn it that day, it would surely have been top choice?
The only clearly visible anomaly on the photo is Amelie's right arm where tell-tale blurring occurs.
Prior to this photograph there were none to 'prove' that Maddie was at PdL on 3/5/2007.
It is the only photograph (the playground one could be any child) with a parent in it.

It is also noteworthy that in the photographic record published so far, there are very few photographs of Maddie with one or both of her parents. As they have continually stressed the 'family' aspect of their existence, why is this not the case?

Kate recalls the pink dress in the book as being apricot coloured, which is what Amelie was wearing in 2007. She actually tells us she should have bought a cardigan to go with it as it was rather chilly. The photograph doesn't convey this and was allegedly taken within a short time after this episode.

In short, I am sure that Amelie is pasted in for the reasons stated above and that the photograph was taken in 2006. With the date/time adjusted in the file- also quite simple to do.
I'm also quite happy for this to have been the only manipulation. In any case the only one that makes sense to me.

Completely agree Tigger. Anyone who has doubts about the mccanns scam would have these questions, grave suspicions and anomalies about this photo, not only about the photoshopping of it. Good point that why was this pink dress never seen again, never used for the dogs to trace the smell...after all she was only wearing it just a few hours before!!! (allegedly)....Maybe it was too wet from the swim/dive at Creche that afternoon, this is what she would have been wearing. I can see why they decided to use a pink blanket now!!! thumbsup

A question worthy of being on a G4S security guard form. If your child had gone missing, would you:
A. Use the latest photo taken that day for people to look for
B. Use an old photo from a year ago for people to look for & release the latest one taken that day a massive 3 weeks later

by jd 15.08.12 11:10

Why wasn't this pink dress given to obtain Maddie's DNA from?

Why did gerry mccann have to go back to Rothley to get some instead?

by Nina 15.08.12 12:24

jd wrote:Why wasn't this pink dress given to obtain Maddie's DNA from?

Why did gerry mccann have to go back to Rothley to get some instead?

You would have thought the clothes she wore that day would have been offered to the police, and I would have expected that the police would have asked for them. But there was a towel, offered that could have been anyone's.