Further Analysis of the Last Photo

Thanks for the link.

Kate said:

At some point in the first twenty-four hours (I could not say when exactly, but probably that morning) I recall one of the GNR patrol officers asking us for some of Madeleine’s clothing or belongings to enable these dogs to identify her scent. I fetched the pink princess blanket she took to bed with her every night, which they took, and some of her clothes, which they didn’t.

I really think a mountain is being made out of a molehill here about towels.

The blanket she slept in every night seems perfectly acceptable to me for a serach. She said she offered them clothes and they didn't take them. The blanket would have been presumably sufficient for the dogs.

Unless you get the Policemen statements explicitly contradicting Kate or saying the McCanns were being evasive/uncooperative then there isn't anything here that would stand up in court.

Justformaddie wrote:Does anyone think her back looks hmm, kinda shaped more like an adults than a nearly 4yr old?

Yes. There is a hunch in the back. The head is at an awkward angle and the arms do not look like those of an almost 4 year olds. The sandals are a peculiar choice for mini - tennis - not appropriate. The hat looks as though it has been photo-shopped on. The tennis balls are not the type usually used for mini tennis.

I think this is all a very sick joke.

Certain people should be certified IMO and should never be allowed access to children.

worriedmum wrote:On the subject of Amelie's t shirt, the simplest explanation is that both Amelie and Madeleine were wearing their new clothes for this photograph.   Amelie's t shirt does have that fresh soft look which doesn't really last long  .


On the picture where Kate is carrying her on her hip, it just looks to me as if it has been washed and probably on too hot a setting-so it's slightly paler and has shrunk a bit.  With regards to the pink t shirt, I have often bought packs of two or even a couple in different colours for holidays-it's again the simplest explanation for me.

The problem with this explanation is the logistics of washing and drying Amelie's top  between wearing it on the last day and then again  looking tighter,on the photos where she is being carried by Kate-judging by Kate's outfit very soon after Madeleine's disappearance.

Bingo, Worriedmum!

I love these kind of observations and housewifely deductions.

BlueBag wrote:Thanks for the link.

Kate said:

At some point in the first twenty-four hours (I could not say when exactly, but probably that morning) I recall one of the GNR patrol officers asking us for some of Madeleine’s clothing or belongings to enable these dogs to identify her scent. I fetched the pink princess blanket she took to bed with her every night, which they took, and some of her clothes, which they didn’t.

I really think a mountain is being made out of a molehill here about towels.

The blanket she slept in every night seems perfectly acceptable to me for a serach. She said she offered them clothes and they didn't take them. The blanket would have been presumably sufficient for the dogs.

Unless you get the Policemen statements explicitly contradicting Kate or saying the McCanns were being evasive/uncooperative then there isn't anything here that would stand up in court.

BB you will perhaps find it more useful to refer to the statements given by the GNR officers regarding the dogs.
You will find them here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

here is a couple of snippets that relate to your query.

Occupation: GNR Officer

"When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCanns' apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the McCann couple. They just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.”

Processo Volume III
 
Pages 762 to 765
 
Witness Statement
 
Antonio Freitas Silva
 
Date: 2007.05.09
 
Location: DIC Portimao
Occupation: 1st Sergeant GNR
Location: GNR-Queluz

•" He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23h00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs."

missbeetle wrote:No expense unspared!

That made me laugh, Juliet - thank you.

Thanks also to the other ladies for their observations.

Always a pleasure to read your fashion opinions on this case.


One thought about the outfit Madeleine is wearing on the side of the pool :

If Kate hadn't namechecked Gap and Monsoon, would you have thought it a flash costume at all...?

Top looks like it could be polycotton, and the insipid print looks like nightwear.

Shorts - if I remember rightly - even have a loose thread somewhere.

A WUM extraordinaire. Thanks for the laughs, you're very amusing.   

And from another statement by one of the police officers:

He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23h00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs.

That is a little further down the page and Dantezebu has kindly copied it for you as well.

I don't know what agenda  you have bluebag, but even when I go to the trouble to find the official statements you seem to put your faith in what  was wtitten by Kate, that paragon of truth and honesty - Maddie sleeping  in the blanket every night: the only source is Kate.

No need to thank me for wasting time finding you the link, no need to thank me for pointing out wherein the link you can find  the reference to towels, no need to thank me for bothering to copy and paste the relevant passage.

First you state that Maddie would smell of soap, I explain that soap isn't a scent exclusive to Maddie. Then you decide she slept  in or under the blanket  whilst it's more likely that it was on top of the sheet and bedding, then you decide that a towel wiill be just as good as clothes worn close to the body.

It's quite pointless  for me to gather all the relevant information in one topic if all those 10.000 views or so had resulted in similar conclusions, luckily  a great many took the trouble to read  the discussion and the statements from the files.

missbeetle wrote:

worriedmum wrote:On the subject of Amelie's t shirt, the simplest explanation is that both Amelie and Madeleine were wearing their new clothes for this photograph.   Amelie's t shirt does have that fresh soft look which doesn't really last long  .


On the picture where Kate is carrying her on her hip, it just looks to me as if it has been washed and probably on too hot a setting-so it's slightly paler and has shrunk a bit.  With regards to the pink t shirt, I have often bought packs of two or even a couple in different colours for holidays-it's again the simplest explanation for me.

The problem with this explanation is the logistics of washing and drying Amelie's top  between wearing it on the last day and then again  looking tighter,on the photos where she is being carried by Kate-judging by Kate's outfit very soon after Madeleine's disappearance.

Bingo, Worriedmum!

I love these kind of observations and housewifely deductions.

I find these 'housewifely' observations and deductions very, very astute and intelligent missbeetle.
I am sure it is these 'housewifely' deductions and observations that will one day catch the Mccanns out and prove them as liars.
In fact IMO I think we have already done that many times over.

And I would say as someone who has young children I just 'know' there is something very wrong here. It just all stacks up so wrong.


All in my opinion, nothing stated as fact.

BlackCatBoogie wrote:

missbeetle wrote:

worriedmum wrote:On the subject of Amelie's t shirt, the simplest explanation is that both Amelie and Madeleine were wearing their new clothes for this photograph.   Amelie's t shirt does have that fresh soft look which doesn't really last long  .


On the picture where Kate is carrying her on her hip, it just looks to me as if it has been washed and probably on too hot a setting-so it's slightly paler and has shrunk a bit.  With regards to the pink t shirt, I have often bought packs of two or even a couple in different colours for holidays-it's again the simplest explanation for me.

The problem with this explanation is the logistics of washing and drying Amelie's top  between wearing it on the last day and then again  looking tighter,on the photos where she is being carried by Kate-judging by Kate's outfit very soon after Madeleine's disappearance.

Bingo, Worriedmum!

I love these kind of observations and housewifely deductions.

I find these 'housewifely' observations and deductions very, very astute and intelligent missbeetle.
I am sure it is these 'housewifely' deductions and observations that will one day catch the Mccanns out and prove them as liars.
In fact IMO I think we have already done that many times over.

And I would say as someone who has young children I just 'know' there is something very wrong here. It just all stacks up so wrong.


All in my opinion, nothing stated as fact.

Thanks ,BCB!

I was beginning to think one of our forum members thought 'housewifely' could be used a pejorative term! Surely not!    

BlackCatBoogie wrote:

missbeetle wrote:

worriedmum wrote:On the subject of Amelie's t shirt, the simplest explanation is that both Amelie and Madeleine were wearing their new clothes for this photograph.   Amelie's t shirt does have that fresh soft look which doesn't really last long  .


On the picture where Kate is carrying her on her hip, it just looks to me as if it has been washed and probably on too hot a setting-so it's slightly paler and has shrunk a bit.  With regards to the pink t shirt, I have often bought packs of two or even a couple in different colours for holidays-it's again the simplest explanation for me.

The problem with this explanation is the logistics of washing and drying Amelie's top  between wearing it on the last day and then again  looking tighter,on the photos where she is being carried by Kate-judging by Kate's outfit very soon after Madeleine's disappearance.

Bingo, Worriedmum!

I love these kind of observations and housewifely deductions.

I find these 'housewifely' observations and deductions very, very astute and intelligent missbeetle.
I am sure it is these 'housewifely' deductions and observations that will one day catch the Mccanns out and prove them as liars.
In fact IMO I think we have already done that many times over.

And I would say as someone who has young children I just 'know' there is something very wrong here. It just all stacks up so wrong.


All in my opinion, nothing stated as fact.

Red mine.
I think you will find out that the McCanns did their washing on the Saturday after Madeleine disappeared. So problem solved.

worriedmum wrote:

BlackCatBoogie wrote:

missbeetle wrote:

worriedmum wrote:On the subject of Amelie's t shirt, the simplest explanation is that both Amelie and Madeleine were wearing their new clothes for this photograph.   Amelie's t shirt does have that fresh soft look which doesn't really last long  .


On the picture where Kate is carrying her on her hip, it just looks to me as if it has been washed and probably on too hot a setting-so it's slightly paler and has shrunk a bit.  With regards to the pink t shirt, I have often bought packs of two or even a couple in different colours for holidays-it's again the simplest explanation for me.

The problem with this explanation is the logistics of washing and drying Amelie's top  between wearing it on the last day and then again  looking tighter,on the photos where she is being carried by Kate-judging by Kate's outfit very soon after Madeleine's disappearance.

Bingo, Worriedmum!

I love these kind of observations and housewifely deductions.

I find these 'housewifely' observations and deductions very, very astute and intelligent missbeetle.
I am sure it is these 'housewifely' deductions and observations that will one day catch the Mccanns out and prove them as liars.
In fact IMO I think we have already done that many times over.

And I would say as someone who has young children I just 'know' there is something very wrong here. It just all stacks up so wrong.


All in my opinion, nothing stated as fact.

Thanks ,BCB!

I was beginning to think one of our forum members thought 'housewifely' could be used a pejorative term! Surely not!    

I am proud to be a housewife!

I have a lot of time and respect for the input of the mothers - and other wise women - on here.

Astute observations, intuition and common sense...

Hooray for the housewives.

just to say ,I used to buy same clothes for 2 of my boys so 2 different sizes ,youngest got to wear both I time haha,wonder what they thoughtmaybe?. the larger one was a dress,it looks far too long to be a top? younger child  didn't look so much smaller than her sister really in poole photo. what do you think? joyce1938

Just my opinion..
Tigger is absolutely correct about the sniffers will sniff out a persons natural body phermones and everyone has the same to an extent and then we each give subtle individual scents. The towel was really silly my kids when bathed together would be silly girls and swap towels giggle and run around making bath time chaotic at best lol.Now thats what gets me...as moms who have had a child out of your sight for a minute the panic sets in and are u going to remember the exact towel a child used..no you would grab her jacket or her dirty " before bath" clothes not a towel thats dried a clean little person...and if they shared a toothbrush the towel is a no brainer.
Now tennis maddy IMO may be the child that kate and tapas friend (cant remember which one) was taking pics and they had the uncomfortable dad incident.I think they had taken some pics of Different " maddys" for the
confusion Gerry spoke of.maybe that is why they didnt turn the camera over to the PJ and the lack of holiday pics..if maddy died early on they had to have recently dated digitals on the camera and possibly didnt have any but the decoys? The camera was on the table in the PJ's photos of 5a...why not take it right away? Alot of senseless things that make no sense until you piece it all together. Just my opinion

dantezebu wrote:here is a couple of snippets that relate to your query.

Occupation: GNR Officer

"When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCanns' apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the McCann couple. They just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.”

Processo Volume III
 
Pages 762 to 765
 
Witness Statement
 
Antonio Freitas Silva
 
Date: 2007.05.09
 
Location: DIC Portimao
Occupation: 1st Sergeant GNR
Location: GNR-Queluz

•" He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23h00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs."

I still don't see why this necessarily a problem.

A blanket the child slept in has got to be OK for this purpose?

There is not enough meat in either of those statements to say they were being evasive or uncooperative.

If you're going to try and nail them then you need to be fair about it.

What do you think a defense lawyer would make of this?

A blanket on top of the sheets? It would have some scent, I would imagine, but not as much. Towel? Did they have a towel each or did they share? Much more likely to share, especially since they apparently shared a toothbrush.

Why not produce, socks, underwear, or a sweaty t-shirt? All would be better.

The McCanns don't seem to be the type of parents that would let their kids share at a toothbrush. My 3 boys (now men) have NEVER shared a toothbrush...ever!
JohnyT

BlueBag wrote:

dantezebu wrote:here is a couple of snippets that relate to your query.

Occupation: GNR Officer

"When they arrived at the scene, they entered the McCanns' apartment by the front door, and entered the living room, where there were some PJ officers as well as the McCann couple. They just talked to some colleagues from the PJ and asked for a piece of clothing that Madeleine had worn or used recently. They were given a pink/orange blanket that the child had been covered with in her bed.”

Processo Volume III
 
Pages 762 to 765
 
Witness Statement
 
Antonio Freitas Silva
 
Date: 2007.05.09
 
Location: DIC Portimao
Occupation: 1st Sergeant GNR
Location: GNR-Queluz

•" He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23h00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs."

I still don't see why this necessarily a problem.

A blanket the child slept in has got to be OK for this purpose?

There is not enough meat in either of those statements to say they were being evasive or uncooperative.

If you're going to try and nail them then you need to be fair about it.

What do you think a defense lawyer would make of this?

I know what the prosecution would make of it.

Kate - having read the files (her own statement)  - tells us she offered clothes and they didn't take them.

The GNR officer says they asked for clothes but were given a blanket.

The statement of the GNR predates that of Kate by some four years and he has back-up from a colleague.

It's clear to me you are on a mission to disrupt and are more than happy to keep this towel/soap/blanket  going for the next hundred pages or so. You're welcome, I'm only posting this message so that others don't fall into the trap.

ETA that incidentally that pink blanket went missing ...

JohnyT wrote:What is interesting though on 'the last picture' is the focus of MBM. I'm not sure what camera took the photo but, usually, with a camera, focus is on the centre subject, whilst here MBM is pin sharp whilst the other subjects are slightly off focus. As it's a bright day, the aperture would have been a higher number, giving greater depth of field and thus should render all the subjects, within the plane that there is, sharp.
JohnyT

Does anybody have a complete set of metadata for this photo?

Just from a quick look, pictures I have taken in Portugal generally have exposures of around half the time of a similar picture taken here in the UK.

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

Going back to page one of this thread, the picture of distraught Kate and Gerry outside the church...

The lady framed between the unhappy couple looks familiar.

Could she be Mrs Susan Hubbard's friend, Fernanda the church helper?

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

JD also provides this photograph of Kate and Amelie :

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

Which he helpfully labels "Allegedly taken between May 4th - May 12th, 2007"

Amelie looking very young and Kate's hair is freshly highlighted.


I have previously wondered, birth certificates aside, if :

Amelie and Sean are not twins...

Madeleine and Sean were the twins...

Amelie was their little sister, possibly born to another mother, maybe only six to nine months younger.


The usual questions about the usual suspects!


Some other housewives of note in this mysterious saga :

Mrs Jenny Murat - retired nurse, I'd say this lady has her finger firmly on the pulse of Praia da Luz.

Mrs Susan Hubbard - qualified midwife, wife of the Father whose name sounds like an contraction of 'heinous' in Standard English.

Mrs Dianne Webster - I wonder if in real life she is as dowdy and down-trodden looking as she appears to us?


My housewifely observations, anyhow...

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

Going back to page one of this thread, the picture of distraught Kate and Gerry outside the church...

The lady framed between the unhappy couple looks familiar.

Could she be Mrs Susan Hubbard's friend, Fernanda the church helper?

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

JD also provides this photograph of Kate and Amelie :

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

Which he helpfully labels "Allegedly taken between May 4th - May 12th, 2007"

Amelie looking very young and Kate's hair is freshly highlighted.


I have previously wondered, birth certificates aside, if :

Amelie and Sean are not twins...

Madeleine and Sean were the twins...

Amelie was their little sister, possibly born to another mother, maybe only six to nine months younger.


The usual questions about the usual suspects!


Some other housewives of note in this mysterious saga :

Mrs Jenny Murat - retired nurse, I'd say this lady has her finger firmly on the pulse of Praia da Luz.

Mrs Susan Hubbard - qualified midwife, wife of the Father whose name sounds like an contraction of 'heinous' in Standard English.

Mrs Dianne Webster - I wonder if in real life she is as dowdy and down-trodden looking as she appears to us?


My housewifely observations, anyhow...

Doh, I really do think you should stop these sort of remarks

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

Re the clothes, t shirts, shorts etc, I think it would have been VERY easy for the police to have confirmed if the clothes that km bleated on about that she says Madeleine was wearing actually came from Gap and Monsoon and which season they came from.

If they couldn't find them in th collection then you would hope they would have looked more seriously at anything else they gave as their version of what they remembered or their version of the truth.

Every time the last photo comes up there are serious attempts to derail any questioning of it, or to bury important questions with distractions. That doesn't seem to have changed.

I can only guess that we're hitting fairly close to the bone when we discuss things like:

a. the timing being deliberately changed
b. the photo was produced in order to prove that Madeleine was alive at a certain hour on a certain day
c. the photo was produced to prove that Gerry was at a particular location at a certain hour on a certain day

We also seem to attract the same sort of attention when we turn our attentions to the tennis court photo.

I can only guess that we're hitting fairly close to the bone when we discuss things like:

a. the child shown in the tennis court photo might not be Madeleine
b. the child shown in the tennis court photo might be a composite of several photos
c. the child shown in the tennis court photo might exist solely to prove that Madeleine was alive at a certain hour on a certain day

Agreed canada12. I think we have hit the nail pretty hard on the head. I cant figure out how they found the other maddys tho unless this had been in the works before the alleged abduction by the loving pedos from the hellish lair.I dont think the pictures of.real maddy was taken after april 29 or 30 th and even their reading material had to have came with them from UK i doubt it was aquired in PDL

All in my opinion of course

Notice the water droplets which seem to have been produced by Madeleine's feet hitting the water.
They overlap A and G.
In my opinion they are consistent with the sun and the whole setting.
I would say Madeleine's facial expression is right as she'd be turning away from all the water stirring.
Auto-enhancing, and post-editing functions can make the photos look artificial in A620 alike cameras. (Explaining some blurring or sharpening levels, or vivid colours instead of a neutral appearance)
The only relevant issue about this photo, in my opinion, is the time stamp on it.
The sun seems to be very high, so consistent with that time and not so much KM’s claim.
Weather can change very quickly or differ between close by locations momentarily. Faro is to far to make assumptions, Sagres has different wind and that changes everything since it would influence weather conditions in Lagos.
From my experience using Photoshop (I’m not an expert but use it a lot for photo editing) the most difficult things would be making the hair look natural and a body’s outline matching all the different background colours – not to mention original light conditions. These things do not scream fake to me in this photo.
I have tried to find free historical weather databases but none seems to have the information needed. I’m sure there are companies which provide accurate weather info for forensic use. The police apparently made no such enquiries.
This is just my opinion, again I’m no expert. For me time stamp and accurate weather important (since it might shift timeline), alleged cropping and blurring irrelevant.

missbeetle wrote:

I am proud to be a housewife!

I have a lot of time and respect for the input of the mothers - and other wise women - on here.

Astute observations, intuition and common sense...

Hooray for the housewives.

missbeetle wrote:


My housewifely observations, anyhow...

missbeetle wrote:What a lovely dog, Clay.

My housewifely eyes were drawn to the columbine displayed on the windowsill.

I think I've sussed it: you're Dame Edna, aren't you?   

Sonmi-451 wrote: *snipped reply to 'missbeetle'*

On an equally very serious note, what with your comments in another thread about MBM appearing to have a (quote) 'bionic eye' and  now her sister seeming to have no nostrils, can I respectfully ask you what your motivation is in making such statements?.

She/he is a WUM and is actually quite amusing to read. Keep it up, 'missbeetle'!  

MrsC wrote:

missbeetle wrote:

I am proud to be a housewife!

I have a lot of time and respect for the input of the mothers - and other wise women - on here.

Astute observations, intuition and common sense...

Hooray for the housewives.

missbeetle wrote:


My housewifely observations, anyhow...

missbeetle wrote:What a lovely dog, Clay.

My housewifely eyes were drawn to the columbine displayed on the windowsill.

I think I've sussed it: you're Dame Edna, aren't you?   

Sonmi-451 wrote: *snipped reply to 'missbeetle'*

On an equally very serious note, what with your comments in another thread about MBM appearing to have a (quote) 'bionic eye' and  now her sister seeming to have no nostrils, can I respectfully ask you what your motivation is in making such statements?.

She/he is a WUM and is actually quite amusing to read. Keep it up, 'missbeetle'!  

I'd like to assign Missbeetle a more appropriate name....Mr Cockroach....for every cockroach you see there are a dozen you don't....and it's a well known fact cockroaches come out in darkness.

So our purported antipodean Mr Cockroach is only playing tag with the other cockroaches on the forum of late.

I don't know how Candyfloss has the patience to deal with it all but thankfully she does.

I have a feeling Mr Cockroach has left the building - I hope he's taken a few of his infestation with him.

I too have had 'thoughts' about missbeetle and last night I read back over his/her posts for the last couple of months. Funny thing is s/he has unearthed so many incidental but little known facts particularly about GM, the detail and observation is quite incredible. Old websites, details that I have never seen before.  Read back just his/her posts and you will see what I mean.  Where on earth did all this stuff come from - some inside knowledge?

All in my own opinion, nothing stated as fact

Wahrheit wrote:

canada12 wrote:

SallyVern wrote:
The tops look like they're two different sizes with the one in the poolside photo appearing longer and loser? 

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

It's a simple thing to change the colour of an object in PhotoShop. I think it's entirely possible Amelie was wearing a larger pink t-shirt in the pool photo and it was changed to orange.

I have mentioned this before. It is very easy to do. I have done it myself in a matter of moments using a photo taken on 12th May i[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Are these supposed to be the twins? In the top photos the girl on the left looks older than the girl on the right. The one on the right looks like a child still in nappies unlike the one on the left. And the girl on the left has her right arm missing. In the bottom photos the girl looks much younger than the boy. Again, the girl clearly at the nappy wearing stage while the boy looks far too mature to be wearing nappies. Is this boy really supposed to be Sean? He looks quite different to other pics I have seen of him?

Also, why is Gerry pulling that extraordinary grimace while carrying Amelie? Anyone would think from the expression on his face that Amelie is trying to throttle him? Just how difficult is it for him to carry the two year old sister of his 'abducted' daughter? Hit face looks really horrible and scary.

In the photo on the right he looks more  'normal' ( although far too relaxed and happy to be the genuine grieving father of a missing child - ditto Kate in the photo on the left). In neither of the bottom two photos can you clearly see Amelie's face, to the extent where you almost wonder if this is deliberate. And the boy who is supposed to be Dean looks bemused. As though he has found himself being carried by a strange woman and is wondering what the hell is going on.


I wonder who the man pictured between Kate and Gerry is in the photo on the right? Given that these appear to be PR photos (judging by the logo on the one on the right) everything and everyone is there for a reason. are we sure these are supposed to have been taken on 12th a May 2007? 

Judging by the outfits, balloons etc these are presumably supposed to have bee taken on the same day. But on closer inspection, Gerry is wearing different trousers/shorts. On the photo on the right in which he looks like a 'normal' Dad on a family holiday (albeit not one whose daughter has just been abducted) he is clearly wearing a pair of baggy dark green/khaki shorts. Whereas in the one on the left it looks very much as though he is wearing denim jeans. You can see the stitching detail and the pocket in which there appears to be some kind of metal object. I suppose it could be a trick of the light. 

Irrespective of this , quite why 'PR photos' chose the photo on the left in which Gerry''s demonic expression could be a graphic welcome to the gates of hell is anyone's guess. And what is it with the folds of skin around his neck? Looks like a crocodile about to snap the next victim?

Oh dear, back in that crocodile swamp!   

I wonder who that man between them on the right hand photo is, though?