Re: Playground Photo

by **tigger** 08.11.11 14:50

jd wrote: quote The photos were printed by an OC employee on the 3rd...I think, by the receptionist or someone. There is a police statement from her about this and if I remember rightly, they used a Kodak printer (there is a model number). But the printer was never found because the receptionist (or, who ever it was) told the police that her boyfriend had taken it with him to France! Beggars belief! unquote

However, there were between 30 to 40 copies printed on quality photographic paper of a brand which was not available in any shop in PdL (PJ)
The other poster, with the handwritten message on it, was simply photocopied by OC I think. THE photograph however, apart from the photoshopping, the age of the child and the admitted fact it was on a USB stick (there were no laptops taken on holiday as far as I could find out - too forensically sensitive I expect) is highly unlikely to have been printed that evening. I believe the printer was reported stolen later, either in France or Switserland. How unlucky can you get?
I believe it is their major mistake, because there is simply no way round it, lost printers or no. Even if one admits there is was a printer, does anyone go on holiday with a stack of A4 photopaper?

by jd 08.11.11 14:57

I'd never thought about the quality of the printed poster and assumed it was on ordinary A4. But if it was printed on quality photographic paper then this raises a few eyebrows, and even more so printed on a brand not available in PDL. Has this been said somewhere about the printed photographic paper? could be significant, as this points strongly that they had to have been printed before the holiday, unless the OC employee had this brand of paper in her printer that travelled to France and got abducted

by Guest 08.11.11 15:12

Here is the report from the files [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Note! 4 photos on Kodak paper was given to the PJ.

ETA

Further down that link it mentions multiple copies made on a HP colour laserjet. ( a colour photocopier type machine)

by **tigger** 08.11.11 15:46

Stella wrote:Here is the report from the files [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Note! 4 photos on Kodak paper was given to the PJ.

ETA

Further down that link it mentions multiple copies made on a HP colour laserjet. ( a colour photocopier type machine)

Processos, Volume 12, Page 231

Snippet From the Statement by Nelson Filipe Pacheco de Costa about the events of the night of 3rd May.

GNR Officer

One of the group contacted Sky News and the Embassy that night. He does not know if the parents made the call.

Upon leaving the apartment he saw various photographs of the little girl printed on normal A4 paper which had been printed at the reception as well as other photos printed on 10 x 15 photographic poster paper which could not have printed at the reception. This seemed unusual to him and he later confirmed that they could not have been printed at the reception.

It's quite a long time ago, but I read the interview with ROB who appears to have been in charge of the printing. He also mentions the USB as given to him by Gerry. As usual it's not very clear, but he is the one mentioning the number of copies printed off as between 30 and 40, from what I recall. I'll have a look at the PJ files.

by jd 08.11.11 15:57

This is really interesting...Hadn't read these particular statements before

"In these photographs is the image of a minor, in all ways identical to the child of British nationality referenced above, in two distinct poses (two by two). As mentioned previously, these were in the possession of the childs family, which from the beginning, even though there may be an explanation, appeared unusual, as on that night there was no possibility of proceeding with a revelation of the type of paper and the format used.'

If Ive read the statements correctly, the PJ are saying (a) that the type of paper the posters were printed on the night of May 3rd was impossible to have been done, and (b) There are no shops in PDL that sells this type of paper (c) Ocean Club did not have this type of paper either, and from Ocean Club there were photocopies made or printed using normal A4 paper taken from a given high formatted printed poster, or memory stick (d) there has never been an explanation to the PJ as to how the mccanns had these high formatted printed posters

In which case, how did they have these high quality printed posters on them on May 3rd? They had only discovered Maddie had gone an hour or two beforehand

If the PJ cannot find this type of paper days and weeks after the event in their own time, how could the mccanns do it in under 2 hours, especially while under stress and panic!

by Guest 08.11.11 16:19

tigger wrote:jd wrote: quote The photos were printed by an OC employee on the 3rd...I think, by the receptionist or someone. There is a police statement from her about this and if I remember rightly, they used a Kodak printer (there is a model number). But the printer was never found because the receptionist (or, who ever it was) told the police that her boyfriend had taken it with him to France! Beggars belief! unquote

However, there were between 30 to 40 copies printed on quality photographic paper of a brand which was not available in any shop in PdL (PJ)
The other poster, with the handwritten message on it, was simply photocopied by OC I think. THE photograph however, apart from the photoshopping, the age of the child and the admitted fact it was on a USB stick (there were no laptops taken on holiday as far as I could find out - too forensically sensitive I expect) is highly unlikely to have been printed that evening. I believe the printer was reported stolen later, either in France or Switserland. How unlucky can you get?
I believe it is their major mistake, because there is simply no way round it, lost printers or no. Even if one admits there is was a printer, does anyone go on holiday with a stack of A4 photopaper?

I suppose if you were taking your printer on holidays you might think of bringing the photopaper (it is expensive & hard to find) but having a hard time with why anyone might take their printer on a tour of Europe, it must have been some printer. Especially when they reported it missing. It's a funny story. I can actually understand the USB stick, it's small & might have been in the luggage. What I have a very hard time understanding however is how a group of 9 people spent their time trawling through memory stick photos, printing out posters and writing tapas check timelines, phoning UK begging for help while the rest of the community were actually out there looking for missing Madeleine.

by jd 08.11.11 17:08

Does anyone know if the poolside photo was in the PJ report of photo's retrieved from their cameras? It must be there somewhere but I cannot find it

by **tigger** 08.11.11 17:33

jd wrote:Does anyone know if the poolside photo was in the PJ report of photo's retrieved from their cameras? It must be there somewhere but I cannot find it

The poolside photo only surfaced after Gerry had been back to the UK, end of May I think. Therefore it is unlikely to be on the camera. Not very clever is it? But then, it looks to me, they were Doctors, they were British, they had clout and media. The PJ wasn't expected to be thorough and imo their attitude to Amaral throughout has been one of revenge.

Kate and someone called Wolf-something from OC went through all the photographs on her camera. Allegedly. I think it's in the book. I now wonder. Because e.g. the photo of the girl with the sunglasses on her head isn't Maddie, but could well be the Payne girl as apparently they were quite alike.
That one is in the bl/w photos of the PJ files I think.
Would be good to know the sequence of deletion / selection/ retrieval(PJ). Also if the tennis girl was the last photo on the memory card.

by jd 08.11.11 18:11

They started on the police from the first minutes to their F and F's...pre planned from the outset I think to deflect any future suspicion away from them

I think it is really important to establish if that poolside pic was ever taken from the camera with the holiday snaps given to the PJ. Because if they are not on it then it all but proves it was sitting on their computer back in the UK and why gerry had to go and get it. And why Murat said 'this is the biggest c**kup in history'. Part of him saying this is gerry leaving the poolside pic at home and not putting it on the camera

This is a big piece of the jigsaw which is glaringly obvious if true but why didn't the PJ follow this up? It must have been on that camera somewhere. We need to prove or dispel the poolside photo being on that camera or not somehow

by jd 15.05.12 0:14

This from Amarals book 'Truth of the Lie - Chapter 5...which I think is referring to this photo

"On the morning of May 4th, Murat is seen near some GNR members in the company of two individuals of English nationality - as we find out later -, one of them being of Asian origin. Ocean Club tourists probably. We also examine the photos taken by the McCanns during their holiday. In one of them, Gerald McCann is seen playing with his children in the Tapas restaurant play area. In the background, you can make out an Asian-looking man, the same one as was seen in Robert Murat's company. He seems to be observing the family. We then proceed to identify him and the other holiday-makers that Murat had been in contact with. We get this information to the English police, who interview them locally. They conclude that they weren't involved in Madeleine's disappearance. In fact, the man in the photo was with his daughter - and there was nothing suspicious about his behaviour; as for the others, they had met Murat during the searches organised to find Madeleine. A few days later, these photos will be published in an English newspaper: it is not known how they were obtained or for what purpose they were disclosed."

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

by russiandoll 15.05.12 18:32

Maddie appears to have her trainers on the wrong feet, the right foot looks to be in a left shoe.

by **tigger** 15.05.12 18:49

russiandoll wrote: Maddie appears to have her trainers on the wrong feet, the right foot looks to be in a left shoe.

Yes, others have noticed that too and it does look that if she straightens up, she'd be definitely higher than Gerry's waist.
it's a very weird picture, seeing the tiny people through the hole in the play thing. None of the proportions seem to work.
It's a useless picture to publish, unless you want to show what a hands-on Daddy Gerry is.
I've just looked - it doesn't work - if you measure the length of her body she would come to Gerry's shoulder. There is also no relationship between what she is doing and what Gerry is watching.

by bobbin 15.05.12 19:34

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

I have never been able to reconcile the angles of the shadows. Where is the sun?
How do the walkers to the top left have long shadows of legs but no bodies, people walking together yet their shadows are at different angles.
How does Gerry have one long leg shadow, Maddie a folded area, but Paynes daughter and Sean nothing?
Where is the long shadow for the 'Asian' man?
Is the tree on the right casting a light shadow on the wall? If so, why is it lighter and at that angle.

For me too, if Maddie stood up I think she would be considerably taller than Payne's daughter, yet on the aircraft steps, Maddie was at most one head above her friend.

by The Snapper 06.01.14 12:06

I'm resuscitating this old thread to concentrate on the playground pic so that PeterMac can have his Holiday Weather thread back. It's also interesting to see what posters were saying about it in the past

I showed the photo to a colleague this morning, who immediately noticed something that's never been mentioned to my knowledge - that the front half sole of Maddie's left shoe disappears into the ground

In summary, what we have so far is:
Maddie has part of her left shoe missing
Maddie has no head and hair shadow to correspond with her body shadow (it would be in front of her feet)
The shadows of the trees and playhouse indicate a sun over our right shoulder (about 4pm) but the people shadows come from a sun over our left shoulder (about 7.30pm)
Bald guy has no shadow
Brown haired girl's shadow direction is the same as the trees not the other people
Bystander on left (not in the cropped version above) is shielding his/her eyes against a sun that is behind him/her according to his/her shadow
Something weird about the straightness of the palm tree trunk edge above bald guy's head
Not convinced about the dark left hand half of the top of the tree trunk
Unexplained horizontal line on the grass to the right of the playhouse
The people shadows are impossible anyway because it indicates a time of 7.30pm (sun due west) so the shadows would be much longer, less light in the sky and kids would be in bed

I am going to show this to a pro photographer today and see what he thinks

I enjoy the discussion on here but a photo like this is very tangible

by tiny 06.01.14 12:21

tigger wrote:
russiandoll wrote: Maddie appears to have her trainers on the wrong feet, the right foot looks to be in a left shoe.

Yes, others have noticed that too and it does look that if she straightens up, she'd be definitely higher than Gerry's waist.
it's a very weird picture, seeing the tiny people through the hole in the play thing. None of the proportions seem to work.
It's a useless picture to publish, unless you want to show what a hands-on Daddy Gerry is.
I've just looked - it doesn't work - if you measure the length of her body she would come to Gerry's shoulder. There is also no relationship between what she is doing and what Gerry is watching.

It looks like Gerry is looking at sean and not Madeleine,also if Madeleine was jumping could that be why her left shoe looks like it missing or may be the grass is a little longer .

by jeanmonroe 06.01.14 12:24

Where is the 'shadow' of the little child , sitting down, in the stripey top?

by **PeterMac** 06.01.14 12:26

Madeleine's left leg has no shadow at all.
Unless you count the one going at right angles to the one Gerry is casting.
The more you look at this one, the more weird it becomes.

by Guest 06.01.14 12:27

Right in front of her, I think JM. There is a tiny portion on the left of her.

I can't see anything strange about Madeleine's shoes, by the way.

by bobbin 06.01.14 12:28

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

I have never been able to reconcile the angles of the shadows. Where is the sun?
How do the walkers to the top left have long shadows of legs but no bodies, people walking together yet their shadows are at different angles.
How does Gerry have one long leg shadow, Maddie a folded area, but Paynes daughter and Sean nothing?
Where is the long shadow for the 'Asian' man?
Is the tree on the right casting a light shadow on the wall? If so, why is it lighter and at that angle.

For me too, if Maddie stood up I think she would be considerably taller than Payne's daughter, yet on the aircraft steps, Maddie was at most one head above her friend.

It gets even worse, the closer you look.
Maddie's right knee and jacket adjoining trousers.
Their is fuzzy blurring on her right knee trouser leg, whereas on the left leg the edge line is defined.
The shadows seem slightly more red on her right leg, than those on her left trouser leg.
The way the jacket overhangs the right leg, is 'indecipherable' in terms of folds and fall line of the material.
I also feel that the legs, if straightened up would make this a tall child, much taller than the little girl sitting down and yet these two on the airport steps were not of such a great difference in height.

by jeanmonroe 06.01.14 13:03

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Right in front of her, I think JM. There is a tiny portion on the left of her.

I can't see anything strange about Madeleine's shoes, by the way.

But the shadows are cast to the right on the other 'subjects'.

There 'should' be a 'shadow' cast to the right of the sitting child on the grass.

by Rasputin 06.01.14 13:56

One reason Maddie's trainer appears to be sinking into the ground maybe the type of grass , it may be ' gramma ' which is like a vine which grows across the top of the ground and feels spongey underfoot ...

by Five Star 06.01.14 14:15

I'm not sure how to search this thread for "purple top"

Sorry if it's been mentioned already, I don't have the time to read it all....

by The Snapper 06.01.14 14:51

jeanmonroe wrote:Where is the 'shadow' of the little child , sitting down, in the stripey top?

As NFWTD said jean, it's in front of her to the left, which is consistent with the mid-afternoon shadows of the trees and playhouse. My hypothesis is that the shadows of all the other people were positioned to make it look later in the day, about 6pm. Reason? Who knows? But that's what it looks like. Incidentally, as I said earlier, the shadows of the people don't indicate 6pm as may have been intended, it's more like 7.30pm and that's impossible for reasons given in my previous post.

by Five Star 06.01.14 15:35

Should Madeleine's pinky finger be on Gerry's side or the picture takers side?

Im trying to use the man with sunglasses & Gerry's hands to figure it out, ....but it gets confusing!!

by Guest 06.01.14 15:58

I have been searching for when this photo was released, and found the -snipped- article below. For the full discussion click the link.

Hope this hasn't been posted before, and am grateful to The Snapper for finding and bumping the old thread on this.

Why was it done, there must have been a reason. I'm sure I read the parents released it. Was it used (and made) to show MBM being there on the specific time and date the Mccs

alleged ? If that was the reason surely a more convincing photo(shopped) picture could have been produced, especially with all the backers and supporters they seem to have had on

call,? apologies, just my rambling thoughts.

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

CONCLUSION
The playground photo was released on or about Saturday May 26. An article appeared on the Sky News website on May 27 (see below). It says that the photo was taken on May 2. More concerning is that the article says that it shows Madeleine and her younger twins Sean and Amelie playing with their father Gerry. As we have shown here quite conclusively, this is not Amelie McCann sitting on the grass. Why then did Sky get this story so blatantly wrong?

It is easy to take those words for granted and not sit and stare at a photo to see if the caption matches the picture. In this case someone has made a big mistake. Not only has the public been fooled by this picture, but in the context of the other discrepancies, what possible reason did the McCanns have to want to deceive with this picture? A mistake is easily rectified and Sky could have fixed the error by now. Our conclusion is that some or all the photos taken at Praia da Luz in the week prior to May 3 were engineered and released for a reason yet to be discovered.

by Guest 06.01.14 16:14

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

Our conclusion is that some or all the photos taken at Praia da Luz in the week prior to May 3 were engineered and released for a reason yet to be discovered.

The only reason I can really offer is that there are a vanishingly small number of photos of the "real" MBM in existence, and, it would seem, none of her in PdL that week.

The only other reason I can think of is some kind of warning to one of the people pictured - that can only be the bald guy. In many ways in fact he is the subject of the picture. I want to say that he is Raj Balu, I know he has been positively identified but I can't remember if it definitely was him.

by Guest 06.01.14 16:26

Another aspect of the photo which is questionable is that the fact that neither girls' faces are visible.

by Guest 06.01.14 16:31

@ CR, I believe your thinking is correct, that it is Raj Balu, can't really rely on my memory nowadays but pretty sure I read that somewhere.

He is also mentioned in GA's book, as is this photo, and he was traced, interviewed and deleted from the enquiry - again IIRC.

I still cannot comprehend why they released such an obviously poor quality photo.

by The Snapper 06.01.14 16:43

daffodil wrote:The playground photo was released on or about Saturday May 26. An article appeared on the Sky News website on May 27 (see below). It says that the photo was taken on May 2.

and it appears to have been set up to indicate that the pictured scene took place at 6pm (but it has been done so badly it doesn't actually indicate any particular time)
is there anything significant about 6pm on May 2?

by Guest 06.01.14 16:52

The Snapper wrote:
daffodil wrote:The playground photo was released on or about Saturday May 26. An article appeared on the Sky News website on May 27 (see below). It says that the photo was taken on May 2.
and it appears to have been set up to indicate that the pictured scene took place at 6pm (but it has been done so badly it doesn't actually indicate any particular time)
is there anything significant about 6pm on May 2?

An alibi ???

Latest topics