Re: Further Analysis of the Last Photo

by j.rob 14.07.14 10:18

Sorry about typos.

by j.rob 14.07.14 10:25

Amelie's right hand is really weird too.

by Guest 14.07.14 10:41

BlackCatBoogie wrote: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

I had one particular exchange with her that was quite enlightening, I must admit.

by Guest 14.07.14 10:51

Wahrheit, On that first photo you posted, it looks to me as if Amelie could have knocked her mouth as she is putting her hand up to it and crying.

by HelenMeg 14.07.14 10:55

Immediately after the disappearance when Kate is photo'd in grey tops and with dishevelled hair, she looks at her most natural that I have ever seen her. She is unkempt and un-bothered about her appearance. She looks grief-stricken and angry at what has happened. To me, she appears exactly as I would expect a mother whose daughter has just died would look. However, she does not look just sad i.e. uncontrollably crying - she looks grief-stricken, defiant and angry - all at the same time. This to me implies that the nature of death was not straightforward and that she is being told how to behave. She appears like a defiant teenager - angry at what she is being asked to do. She is definitely angry at someone.

She then transforms into a media conscious person - dressed for the camera - makeup / earrings etc. I find it interesting seeing this very quick transformation and trying to understand her feelings during this process and what causes them.

It is as though she suddenly understands that there has to be a cover up and that she has to play a part in order to enable the charade.

What is interesting to me is that on the night of the alleged abduction, Kate will still be in natural angry, defiant , grief stricken mood. Therefore at that point she wasnt 'onboard' with the charade. I believe, therefore, that when she calls out that M is missing and th fxxxcking bxxxds have taken her etc etc - she is doing it for real. Hence the massive cuckup to the timing of the scene.

Can anyone understand what I'm trying to say?

by Guest 14.07.14 11:34

HelenMeg wrote:Immediately after the disappearance when Kate is photo'd in grey tops and with dishevelled hair, she looks at her most natural that I have ever seen her. She is unkempt and un-bothered about her appearance. She looks grief-stricken and angry at what has happened. To me, she appears exactly as I would expect a mother whose daughter has just died would look. However, she does not look just sad i.e. uncontrollably crying - she looks grief-stricken, defiant and angry - all at the same time. This to me implies that the nature of death was not straightforward and that she is being told how to behave. She appears like a defiant teenager - angry at what she is being asked to do. She is definitely angry at someone.

She then transforms into a media conscious person - dressed for the camera - makeup / earrings etc. I find it interesting seeing this very quick transformation and trying to understand her feelings during this process and what causes them.

It is as though she suddenly understands that there has to be a cover up and that she has to play a part in order to enable the charade.

What is interesting to me is that on the night of the alleged abduction, Kate will still be in natural angry, defiant , grief stricken mood. Therefore at that point she wasnt 'onboard' with the charade. I believe, therefore, that when she calls out that M is missing and th fxxxcking bxxxds have taken her etc etc - she is doing it for real. Hence the massive cuckup to the timing of the scene.

Can anyone understand what I'm trying to say?

Yes and I totally agree Helen Meg. IMO I think there was pre-planning of something involving MBM, but either KM wasn't aware of the full details until the last minute or the plan went horribly wrong and they were left with a body. Or they were involved in a plan and then were set up, dropped in it. Whatever, IMO she still had to go along with it. IMO I think there are many things that support this, sorry this is just a summary as don't have time to get all the right quotes:-

- KM - the fing b'stads have taken her - imo implies she knew who took MBM and it was a difficult situation
- the bungled time lines, hastily written in sticker book
- interview inconsistencies, time-line inconsistencies
- RM saying 'biggest cock up...etc'
- GM phoning home saying 'diasaster'
- bruises on KM
- possible bruises on GM (thus sunglasses photoshopping on last photo?)
- bungling disposal of body, cadaver scent, blood in apartment. Cadaver scent in car

IMO I think what you say is absolutely spot on. I think things went wrong at the last moment, or they were dropped in it right at the last moment hence all the bungling. MBM could have been 'abducted' but not in the sense that we have been led to believe.

And of course there is this little gem:-

[color:8e36=000000]"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

[color:8e36=000000](source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.])

All in my own opinion, nothing stated as fact.

by missbeetle 14.07.14 13:13

Thank you, J.Rob for your observations, all noted and nodded at!

Mr Oxblood Shoes in the background looks like a rum one...!

I do think that the shorts are the same, though - no dark denim for Gerald.

Perhaps the grimace evinced by Gerry was also partly to do with the costume he is wearing.

Not a pin-striped suit, nor a dashing polo shirt and blazer combo -

...a grubby white Tshirt.

Sunlight soap would be my housewifely recommendation here.

After all, sunlight is the best dinsinfectant.

by Guest 14.07.14 13:52

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'!

The pros went through a phase of labelling anyone who disagreed with them a menopausal housewife.

Rather a risky strategy when you consider the age and occupation of one of their paymasters big grin

(Sorry for straying off-topic)

by **tigger** 14.07.14 14:29

HelenMeg wrote:Immediately after the disappearance when Kate is photo'd in grey tops and with dishevelled hair, she looks at her most natural that I have ever seen her. She is unkempt and un-bothered about her appearance. She looks grief-stricken and angry at what has happened. To me, she appears exactly as I would expect a mother whose daughter has just died would look. However, she does not look just sad i.e. uncontrollably crying - she looks grief-stricken, defiant and angry - all at the same time. This to me implies that the nature of death was not straightforward and that she is being told how to behave. She appears like a defiant teenager - angry at what she is being asked to do. She is definitely angry at someone.

She then transforms into a media conscious person - dressed for the camera - makeup / earrings etc. I find it interesting seeing this very quick transformation and trying to understand her feelings during this process and what causes them.

It is as though she suddenly understands that there has to be a cover up and that she has to play a part in order to enable the charade.

What is interesting to me is that on the night of the alleged abduction, Kate will still be in natural angry, defiant , grief stricken mood. Therefore at that point she wasnt 'onboard' with the charade. I believe, therefore, that when she calls out that M is missing and th fxxxcking bxxxds have taken her etc etc - she is doing it for real. Hence the massive cuckup to the timing of the scene.

Can anyone understand what I'm trying to say?

This is from:

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

[quote="nomendelta"]I've read your theory and like it however...look at how clumsy the story given by the McCanns is. Surely they could have created a timeline that made the abduction likely? They didn't. That fact alone...well if they couldn't do that right how on earth could they have developed the machiavellian skills needed to orchestrate and guarantee massive libel payments? unquote

I think the original plan just involved the Fund and a chance for the bereft parents to be ambassadors for lost children. Amber alert for Europe etc. There are lots of indications to that effect. But the response from the public and press was much bigger than they anticipated.
Madeleine's fourth birthday. From McCann files.
Her parents mark the day by calling for people to redouble their efforts to find her. After spending most of the day away from Praia da Luz, the couple attend a special birthday mass in the village where Mr McCann speaks about the impact of the abduction on the family.
He also says for the first time that the couple are convinced Madeleine is alive.
The total reward being offered by business figures, celebrities and a national newspaper for information leading to Madeleine's safe return reaches £2.5 million. unquote.

@HelenMeg
i think you're right on the change - When I came across the line above, that for the first time on her birthday they spoke about Maddie being alive.
On the 11th, the day before, the lawyers arrived, I have to check but I think the same lawyers who set up the fund in record time.
Security, MI5 etc. had also been in place for over a week.
So was the original intent to be more realistic and accept that the likelyhood of her being alive was not part of the story.
The next question would be what changed in that period for TM to adjust the story?

And bubblewrap posted this on the Mitchell topic:

He did breakfast TV and the odd Six O'Clock News – "which nobody remembers" – but by the time he left the BBC in 2005, his career had reached a plateau. "I felt I had more to offer." Recruited by the Cabinet Office to run the Media Monitoring Unit, he had a hard first week. "The Monday was the G8 at Gleneagles. I was just about getting my head round the job on Tuesday, then Wednesday we won the Olympics. Thursday was 7/7." When the Foreign Office sent him to assist the McCanns – as he insists it would have helped any family in that situation – he asked difficult questions. "I was assured that from the perspective of the British authorities, this was a rare case of stranger abduction."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
by bubblewrap
on Sat Jul 12, 2014 11:59

I read 'from the perspective of' as being the official line. They knew, imo, that the abduction didn't add up.
But certainly a better idea to look for a live girl To avoid a lit of enthusiasts digging up the Algarve.

The other fateful event between 3/5 and 12/5 was the astounding and unexpected worldwide success of the press campaign.

So the lawyers arrive and in no time we have a fighting Fund, Michael Wright giving a statement to the press that reads like the start of a new industry, mentioning as 'their partners' multinationals and industry..... and Maddie totally alive and unharmed.

by Guest 14.07.14 15:10

missbeetle wrote:Thank you, J.Rob for your observations, all noted and nodded at!

Mr Oxblood Shoes in the background looks like a rum one...!

I do think that the shorts are the same, though - no dark denim for Gerald.

Perhaps the grimace evinced by Gerry was also partly to do with the costume he is wearing.

Not a pin-striped suit, nor a dashing polo shirt and blazer combo -

...a grubby white Tshirt.

Sunlight soap would be my housewifely recommendation here.

After all, sunlight is the best dinsinfectant.

Are you saying it's murat then?

As I said before missbeetle I am astounded by the depth and breadth of research and detail in your posts.

Where DO you find the time amongst all your housewifely duties?? big grin

All imo

by Guest 14.07.14 15:13

Reminds me of 'therealcuddlecat' who used to post. Not saying...

by noddy100 14.07.14 15:45

I have always thought the 'they've taken her' comment may have been because Kate knew M was with whoever and she had agree it but she never expected them to take her too

by HelenMeg 14.07.14 15:56

Thanks BCB and Tigger for adding your comments to what I was saying. Its interesting

by missbeetle 14.07.14 16:35

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
missbeetle wrote:Thank you, J.Rob for your observations, all noted and nodded at!

Mr Oxblood Shoes in the background looks like a rum one...!

I do think that the shorts are the same, though - no dark denim for Gerald.

Perhaps the grimace evinced by Gerry was also partly to do with the costume he is wearing.

Not a pin-striped suit, nor a dashing polo shirt and blazer combo -

...a grubby white Tshirt.

Sunlight soap would be my housewifely recommendation here.

After all, sunlight is the best dinsinfectant.
Are you saying it's murat then?

As I said before missbeetle I am astounded by the depth and breadth of research and detail in your posts.

Where DO you find the time amongst all your housewifely duties??

All imo

Crikey, no - Mr Oxblood Shoes looks a smoother mover than Murat.

I will admit I have burnt more than a few dinners looking up incongruities in these stories...

I am a housewife - proudly so, even - however my house will never look as immaculate as Rothley Towers.

I'm not yet menopausal - 43 this year - but I am looking forward to cronehood.

Meanwhile I am quite happy to rock the appellation 'middle-aged housewife'.

No gladioli - from the Latin for sword - in my flowers arrangements though.

by Jauna Loca 14.07.14 17:13

Newintown wrote:
Hicks wrote:Just a thought about the tennis photo. Why did Madeleine have scandals on, and not her pink trainers?
Madeleine had trainers, she was wearing them in the airport clip.

Yes, that's a good point. Knowing how children become obsessed with new clothes, shoes, etc, it's more likely that Madeleine would have wanted to go to bed in her pink trainers and K & G would have had to prise them off her with a crow bar.

Those sandals look like something from the 1950s/60s.

IMO that's Kate herself as a kid. Know that comment has been made here before. I had an outfit very like that in the 70s and I'm of an age with Kate.

I've also always felt that the Last Photo was originally Gerry with Madeleine as a baby (the pseudo "Amalie") on a previous PdL holiday with the older Maddie
pasted in afterwards.

All just opinion, of course.

by Justformaddie 14.07.14 17:42

noddy100 wrote:I have always thought the 'they've taken her' comment may have been because Kate knew M was with whoever and she had agree it but she never expected them to take her too

Could be, if km was planning going back to say her last goodbye with her in private at ten, but when she got there', she'd already been removed maybe? IMO

by HelenMeg 14.07.14 17:54

Justformaddie wrote:
noddy100 wrote:I have always thought the 'they've taken her' comment may have been because Kate knew M was with whoever and she had agree it but she never expected them to take her too
Could be, if km was planning going back to say her last goodbye with her in private at ten, but when she got there', she'd already been removed maybe? IMO

Yes I always thought that was likely too

by Watchingthespincycle 14.07.14 18:24

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote: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

I had one particular exchange with her that was quite enlightening, I must admit.

Ok, I may well be being paranoid, and it's just a thought. But if a poster comes on giving ridiculous theories, which could either discredit the site, or even just to try to make people wonder about said ridiculous theories, is also giving believable information which nobody else knows, could the believable info be a red herring?
I'm putting this really badly, and massive apologies if I'm wrong. But if the believable info is believed and used in the ongoing war with TM and they can discredit it easily then it effectively discredits the other, valid, info. Once again, apologies if wrong.

by **PeterMac** 14.07.14 19:15

The Last Photo was examined in detail some time ago by two people whose professions depend on photo shopping.
In one case taking stuff out so that it is of TV and film quality (gantries, cranes, shadows and so on removed so that only the car or whatever is left)
In the other case by a University Professor (US) who has written specific algorithms, for the Security Services amongst others, to detect photo shopping.

Both totally independently say the photo itself seems to be OK. The double lines etc visible at high magnification are artefacts caused by compression and transfer.
But both draw attention to the ease with which a knowledgable individual could alter the time and date in the meta-data
(And we remember that our attention was drawn by Mitchell specifically to the time and date - and once that creature has pointed, one needs to look in the opposite direction !)

The fact remains it was NOT hot and sticky and calm at 2.29 on 3/5/7 Nor at 1;29, nor 3;29. Nor at all:29
It was cold and windy
It WAS hot and sticky and calm on Sunday 29/4/7, the first full day - new clothes, running about, exploring, getting bearings, sun glasses, first bit of heat, sweaty face,
and as everyone in the world does on the first day of a holiday - LOTS OF PHOTOS, in case the weather changes. Which it did.

Make of that what you will.

by sar 14.07.14 19:22

noddy100 wrote:I have always thought the 'they've taken her' comment may have been because Kate knew M was with whoever and she had agree it but she never expected them to take her too

+1 noddy100, but begs the question, if she knew M was with someone what was supposed to be going on that went so far but stopped at taking her? All speculation of course, nothing suggested as fact

by HelenMeg 14.07.14 19:37

PeterMac wrote:The Last Photo was examined in detail some time ago by two people whose professions depend on photo shopping.
In one case taking stuff out so that it is of TV and film quality (gantries, cranes, shadows and so on removed so that only the car or whatever is left)
In the other case by a University Professor (US) who has written specific algorithms, for the Security Services amongst others, to detect photo shopping.

Both totally independently say the photo itself seems to be OK. The double lines etc visible at high magnification are artefacts caused by compression and transfer.
But both draw attention to the ease with which a knowledgable individual could alter the time and date in the meta-data
(And we remember that our attention was drawn by Mitchell specifically to the time and date - and once that creature has pointed, one needs to look in the opposite direction !)

The fact remains it was NOT hot and sticky and calm at 2.29 on 3/5/7 Nor at 1;29, nor 3;29. Nor at all:29
It was cold and windy
It WAS hot and sticky and calm on Sunday 29/4/7, the first full day - new clothes, running about, exploring, getting bearings, sun glasses, first bit of heat, sweaty face,
and as everyone in the world does on the first day of a holiday - LOTS OF PHOTOS, in case the weather changes. Which it did.

Make of that what you will.

Assuming it was taken on 29th April Sunday, then why was it important to present it as the last photo taken on afternoon of the 3rd May.

To provide evidence that Gerry and / or Madeleine were at the side of the pool in Ocean Club at 2:29 that afternoon.
So maybe to prove Madeleine was still alive that afternoon or to prove Gerry's whereabouts that afternoon. Why was it so important to do that.
I dont think Gerry was about that afternoon. If you read through the Rog statements of the TAPAS 7 then everyone is vague about Gerry's location. If Gery did need to conceal his whereabouts that afternoon then this implies that M was already dead by then.

Ive always believed she was alive until early that evening - but this need to provide a timed photo of where Gerry and Madeleine were that afternoon appears to indicate otherwise.

by j.rob 14.07.14 20:17

Kate: 'the first 48 hours you are non-functioning.' 48 hours after *what* exactly? Accident/abuse/realisation of inevitable outcome/death?

Still think *something* happened the night Mrs Fenn heard crying. Despite having been a potential important witness, she gets an earful from Kate and Jane. If the crying incident was Monday, the next 48 hours would be up to Wednesday late evening. By Thursday Kate was functioning enough to tell the police that she was convinced that her daughter had been abducted.

That interview in which she makes the 'first 48 hours' comment is very telling. ''We had been very busy' she says. Busy doing what, exactly?

And while Kate admits she was 'non-functioning', Gerry appears to have been functioning quite normally, to the extent of inviting the winsome aerobics instructor to join his table for dinner one evening.

With regard to the photos up thread showing Kate and Gerry allegedly carrying the twins, and taken/ published on 12th May I think? Is this a 'key date?' I wonder what was going on at around this time? Where was Madeleine?

I think those pics share some of the 'creepy' qualities of some of the other photos (many of which look photoshopped) produced by TM at 'key' dates. Gerry's demonic expression, twins looking different to other photos of them ( especially Sean - no way does he look like a 2 year old). Amelie being carried awkwardly by Gerry - very awkwardly. I'm not sure you could even lift a child like that with the fingers of one hand doubled back on themselves like that. And, again, no contact from Amelie - the hand near him is strangely positioned not holding on to h as you would Kate: 'the first 48 hours you are non-functioning.' 48 hours after *what* exactly? Accident/abuse/realisation of inevitable outcome/death?

I wonder if the reason there are so few photos of any of their children that holiday is so that none of them can ever be properly identified. I noticed that even when Gerry is photographed coming off the plane holding Sean, you can't see his face as he appears in a deep sleep with his face against Gerry. Odd, when you consider all the hullabaloo of landing. You would expect a toddler to have woken up on landing.

So, still no 'normal' photos as far as I can see.

Poor little Madeleine, I don' t think she ever stood a chance.

by Guest 14.07.14 20:21

You need to clean that post up j.rob, it's a mess.

by Sonmi-451 14.07.14 20:39

@ PeterMac & @HelenMeg

I haven't seen the comments from the experts, so it's good to hear it's been done and I'll see if I can track down their findings. I trust their formal credibility stands for something when they say "the photo itself seems to be OK".

I've chipped in two or three times to say, across two or three threads, that my job involves working with 'family photos' and I have never seen any evidence at all of any malicious tinkering, (e.g. "pasting Head A on Body B", "Major Photoshopping", 'mysterious folds of skin', etc.)... but that the analysis of photos is a worthwhile topic in so far as how published images fit with/conflict with the formally promoted timeline. That's the area where immutable facts can be teased out and 'banked' as reasonable evidence, not supposition about a neck-fold or a 'bad facial expression'. Furthermore there's a potential motive for saying that a particular photo was taken on Day X and not on Day Z, whilst I would suggest that there is no reasonable motive for (badly) Photoshopping out a limb, or a pair of nostrils, etc.

n.b. Changing meta-data tags is quite easy to do (it was never intended to be a 'secure' tag) and I bet all my kids know how to do it... or could work it out in minutes ! big grin

by **PeterMac** 14.07.14 20:47

HelenMeg wrote:
Assuming it was taken on 29th April Sunday, then why was it important to present it as the last photo taken on afternoon of the 3rd May.

To provide evidence that Gerry and / or Madeleine were at the side of the pool in Ocean Club at 2:29 that afternoon.
So maybe to prove Madeleine was still alive that afternoon or to prove Gerry's whereabouts that afternoon. Why was it so important to do that.
I dont think Gerry was about that afternoon. If you read through the Rog statements of the TAPAS 7 then everyone is vague about Gerry's location. If Gery did need to conceal his whereabouts that afternoon then this implies that M was already dead by then.
Ive always believed she was alive until early that evening - but this need to provide a timed photo of where Gerry and Madeleine were that afternoon appears to indicate otherwise.

Quite so
The photo is there to provide "proof" that Madeleine was alive and well at lunchtime that day.
And that Gerry was around.
That is the day when he called off sick from the tennis, with his Achilles Tendon injury.
He therefore has the whole afternoon free, until he re-appears, from the Miraculous cure of St Katherine of the Immaculate Multiple Conceptions
and plays tennis like a demon all through the later afternoon and evening, forgoing even such small parental enjoyment as putting the children to bed and reading them a story.
He delegates this task to a "friend".
The Saintly Kate meanwhile is sent on a LONG run, down to the beach, to establish a proper alibi, by being seen by the Tapas group,
The Tapas group have in their turn been sent to the Paraiso bar to parade up and down in front of the CCTV, and to establish their own alibis, and that of St Kate.

They are all well out of the way and not one of them can therefore be questioned in detail about what went on anywhere else.

All they know know is . . .
what they were told.

And it is this train of though which pushes me towards PURPORTING the evening and night of 2nd, with neither parent realising what had happened for the reasons we know, separate bedrooms, argument / cross, stomping about, possibly without putting the lights on - we know how they didn't even do that when they were "checking" the children - but not finding a little crumpled body, unconscious, and dying of a sub-arachnoid, down the back of the sofa, until the following morning, when she is stiff and cold, and has leaked t the tiles.

Then in their distress - and I do not for one moment imagine they were not devastated - indeed it may be the depth of their grief which caused them to lose control of their rational side -
in their distress, they make a series of decisions which on mature reflection they might wish to have made differently.

by **PeterMac** 14.07.14 20:51

Sonmi-451 wrote:@ PeterMac & @HelenMeg
I haven't seen the comments from the experts, so it's good to hear it's been done and I'll see if I can track down their findings. I trust their formal credibility stands for something when they say "the photo itself seems to be OK".
:

I have never posted their reports here.
They were given in confidence and were supplied to Grange a long time ago, like a lot of other confidential stuff..

by Guest 14.07.14 21:21

Confidentiality is a word, that counts, Peter.
Thank you so much for all your efforts.
IMO and D.V. one day this case will be solved.

by j.rob 15.07.14 8:19

candyfloss wrote:You need to clean that post up j.rob, it's a mess.

Oops, somehow I managed to double post part of the post but don't know how to edit it now.

I've removed the duplicate paragraphs. NFWTD.

by Sonmi-451 17.07.14 4:00

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

To the left - above the bright white thing, I see a white dog, mournful-looking thing, black ears with a black patch on its rump.

On the right I see the face of a brown dog, which looks to be carrying something in its mouth.

My interpretations, anyhow...

I have deleted your comment as it was a little too expressive for me, S.

I think that missbeetle was intending to be humorous at the expense of over-analysing of photos. I really hope that she wasn't being serious! NFWTD.

by j.rob 18.07.14 10:15

missbeetle wrote:
BlackCatBoogie wrote:
missbeetle wrote:Thank you, J.Rob for your observations, all noted and nodded at!

Mr Oxblood Shoes in the background looks like a rum one...!

I do think that the shorts are the same, though - no dark denim for Gerald.

Perhaps the grimace evinced by Gerry was also partly to do with the costume he is wearing.

Not a pin-striped suit, nor a dashing polo shirt and blazer combo -

...a grubby white Tshirt.

Sunlight soap would be my housewifely recommendation here.

After all, sunlight is the best dinsinfectant.
Are you saying it's murat then?

As I said before missbeetle I am astounded by the depth and breadth of research and detail in your posts.

Where DO you find the time amongst all your housewifely duties??

All imo

Crikey, no - Mr Oxblood Shoes looks a smoother mover than Murat.

I will admit I have burnt more than a few dinners looking up incongruities in these stories...

I am a housewife - proudly so, even - however my house will never look as immaculate as Rothley Towers.

I'm not yet menopausal - 43 this year - but I am looking forward to cronehood.

Meanwhile I am quite happy to rock the appellation 'middle-aged housewife'.

No gladioli - from the Latin for sword - in my flowers arrangements though.

I do agree that Gerry's grubby T-shirt could benefit from a good hot whites only wash and a nice press, especially when you consider these were PR photos. Perhaps he was saving some scents for the sniffer dogs? Nothing like a well worn cotton T- shirt to gather some rich odours.

Missbeetle - do consider gladioli for your future flower arrangements! Such mighty triumphant blooms and I was unaware of their Latin derivation.

But who is 'smooth mover' Mr Oxblood Shoes' who appears in photos taken on a photo-shoot day? And who is the boy that Kate is carrying who looks nothing like Sean? And why did 'PR photos' select a photo of Gerald, appearing to be carrying Amelie, in which his face is distorted into a truly scary grimace and she appears to be flung awkwardly into the air?

(Is anyone able to post up these two photos on their own?)

I mean, usually in cases of kidnapped children there will be a line up of the family looking sad and worried and grief/stricken, holding onto each other and making anguished appeals. That photo is completely different, so why publish it?

And for those who think there is sometimes over analysis. All I will say is that the devil is often in the detail as any good housewife will know?! But surely that should be 'house person' as I am sure there are just as many husbands or indeed men who perhaps consider that 'cleanliness is next to Godliness!'

(Scuttles away in shame with a grubby duster....!)