Re: Alex Woolfall 'knows': 'The Last Photo', and other photos of Madeleine in Praia da Luz

by Guest 27.11.13 12:29

Portia wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:[url=http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/_m/maddy_ (12).jpg][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/url]

I have always wondered why Goncalo Amaral chose this photo and the name Maddie on the front cover of his book, but then thinking about it his book is based on the police investigations and official police files.

Is it possible GA was and still is in plain sight, letting all involved know that he knows there were no holiday photos of Madeleine and she was often refered to has Maddie?
Did he? In Belgium its the Iconic Picture

BTW: Always look at the crooked fingers on 'Madeleine' or 'Maddie'
So very strange.

What was amiss with her hands?

Agree about the hands Portia, the photo above and these two show Madeleine with her left arm raised, I do question if there was something not quite right about her left hand?

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

Is the photo below badly photoshopped to cover a problem with the left hand?

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

by Guest 02.12.13 10:34

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

Going back to the official photograph of Madeleine

Silvia Maria Correia Ramos Batista

5A apartment.
--- Once inside the apartment she asked those present for the passports of all members of their
families, as well as photographs of the missing girl. The deponent accompanied Gerry to the GNR
vehicle in order to deliver the requested documents. She states that she did this work, as well as
other work, at the request of the GNR Commander because they used her knowledge of English to
translate questions put to members of the family of the missing girl, as well as the answers that
were given. She recalls Gerry delivered several photographs of the missing girl to the GNR
Commander. The photos were postcard-style, they having that dimension and format. In truth they
were photographs of the dimension and format [size and shape] of a postcard, and they all looked

the same to her

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

Antonio Henrique de Conceicao Duarte
witness GNR officer

He says he does not know who handed him the photos, different from each other, two by two.
He is sure that he is the person who received them.

He states that the photos came from inside the apartment, he still cannot say who had them. When he was inside the police car, gathering identification documents from the parents, he asked someone nearby for photos, he does not know if that person was Portuguese or British. This same person entered the apartment and came out with the photos.
He does not know whether it was Silvia Baptista who gave him the photos, as she was translating the conversations, neither whether it was someone from the family or friends.
He is sure that he received them in the early morning, at about 02.00, when the police arrived, after having carried out the first search.
He has the impression he saw the girl's father, however he cannot confirm whether he was the one to give him the photos.
He presumes he was given the photos directly, or in other words that they were not passed to him via someone else.

When questioned he says that the photos could not have been printed/revealed at the Ocean Club installations (they do not have this kind of paper). He adds that the photos produced the following day, which he observed, were printed on A4 paper, which was available at the resort.

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

Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa
G.N.R. Military Personnel

He also notes that he saw various photographs on normal A4 paper of the girl, which had been printed at the reception, as well as other photos on photographic paper, poster type 10x15, that could not have been printed at the reception. This seemed unusual to him and he later confirmed that it was not possible for them to have been printed at the reception.

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

The above three statements all mention photo's (not posters on A4 Paper)

If these photo's were printed at some point in time who would have the photographic paper?

by canada12 02.12.13 10:47

Cherry Blossom wrote:
The above three statements all mention photo's (not posters on A4 Paper)

If these photo's were printed at some point in time who would have the photographic paper?

It would have to be someone local who had a printer and paper at the ready, at that time of night, on short notice. It's not the sort of thing one travels with, really...

ETA.. unless Gerry and Kate already had those photos with them, printed in advance, and were travelling with them...

by Guest 02.12.13 10:54

Cherry Blossom wrote:

If these photo's were printed at some point in time who would have the photographic paper?

I think this might have an innocent explanation. From memory, Kodak Easyshare was a complete system that was aimed at the technophobic and designed to replicate the experience of getting your photos printed in somewhere like Jessops etc. So the camera docked directly with the printer, and the ink and paper came in a combined refill, the ink being sufficient to print photos on all the supplied paper. So chances are that whoever had the printer and the ink (one of the OC staff IIRC) also had the paper.

Good info here http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/kodak/dx7440/kodak-dx7440-review-6.html#b

Mention also made there of an optional USB card reader.

by Guest 02.12.13 11:02

canada12 wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:
The above three statements all mention photo's (not posters on A4 Paper)

If these photo's were printed at some point in time who would have the photographic paper?
It would have to be someone local who had a printer and paper at the ready, at that time of night, on short notice. It's not the sort of thing one travels with, really... unless one travels to a destination for the express purpose of printing pictures...?

ETA.. unless Gerry and Kate already had those photos with them, printed in advance, and were travelling with them...

The thought had crossed my mind canada12, about them travelling with those photo's, but wasn't it ROB who said the photo came from KM camera?

Reading through the statements the PJ were certainly interested in them, they were also interested in the whereabouts of Robert Murat! it does make you wonder

by Guest 02.12.13 11:04

Cherry Blossom wrote:
canada12 wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:
The above three statements all mention photo's (not posters on A4 Paper)

If these photo's were printed at some point in time who would have the photographic paper?
It would have to be someone local who had a printer and paper at the ready, at that time of night, on short notice. It's not the sort of thing one travels with, really... unless one travels to a destination for the express purpose of printing pictures...?

ETA.. unless Gerry and Kate already had those photos with them, printed in advance, and were travelling with them...
The thought had crossed my mind canada12, about them travelling with those photo's, but wasn't it ROB who said the photo came from KM camera?

Reading through the statements the PJ were certainly interested in them, they were also interested in the whereabouts of Robert Murat! it does make you wonder

Of course the question needs to be asked, why not the tennis court photo?

by Guest 02.12.13 11:20

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:

If these photo's were printed at some point in time who would have the photographic paper?
I think this might have an innocent explanation. From memory, Kodak Easyshare was a complete system that was aimed at the technophobic and designed to replicate the experience of getting your photos printed in somewhere like Jessops etc. So the camera docked directly with the printer, and the ink and paper came in a combined refill, the ink being sufficient to print photos on all the supplied paper. So chances are that whoever had the printer and the ink (one of the OC staff IIRC) also had the paper.

Good info here http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/kodak/dx7440/kodak-dx7440-review-6.html#b

Mention also made there of an optional USB card reader.

Take your point CR, whoever had the items you mention was known to GM , the photo was on KM's camera, he knew he would be asked for a photo of Madeliene and he got someone to print several off pretty quickly, but who?

by Guest 02.12.13 11:34

Cherry Blossom wrote:

Take your point CR, whoever had the items you mention was known to GM , the photo was on KM's camera, he knew he would be asked for a photo of Madeliene and he got someone to print several off pretty quickly, but who?

They obviously wanted to be in control of the image that got out there, it would seem it needed to be an older one as, I fear, the girl who accompanied them to Portugal was NOT Maddie.

That is why, when Redwood talks about drawing everything back to zero, if he is really serious that will involve such as examining the luggage x-rays (if still available) of everybody even tangentially connected to the McCanns. I've personally made no secret of the fact that I believe the nannies who arrived at the OC that week are particularly interesting.

by Mirage 02.12.13 11:49

If there is one thing that infuriates me about the McCanns, it's the way they treat the public as fools.

There is no way on God's earth that the tennis ball photograph Madeleine is the same child as the swimming pool Madeleine.

The child in the tennis ball picture is around five years of age to my eye, at least. The swimming pool photo taken 1,2 or 3 days later (variously testified by amnaesics) is of a child of 3/4 to my eye.

No child aged 3/4 could be a capable ball girl, especially IF a competitive adult male game was in progress. In fact it is dangerous on an adult court. Think of the little tot tripping up the aircraft steps. Think of the tiny tot swinging her legs in the airport bus and ask yourself, did that child holding all the tennis balls fit with that level of maturity?

The adult courts were tightly booked so no playing time would be wasted by those particular adults IMO. Can you imagine them waiting for a little kid to run round picking up then dropping balls for minutes on end, and for her to be out of the way to whack the next ball over the net? There were children's tennis sessions anyway so the whole notion is incredible.

I recall seeing "ghosting" in that photo some time back too. ??? A missing tennis ball. It was in the chin area IIRC.

I have long suspected the tennis photo is of KM and if so there is something so sick at the heart of this case we will take the rest of the century off to get over it.

When you look at the discrepancies in just about every utterance from these two and and their tapas friends, you can see why GM thought confusion was good. Remember him joking and laughing on the balcony a few days later, not a care in the world was there?

To my mind, that confusion has continued apace with the various e-fits on CW, the changes in reconstruction between the different countries' versions - even down to hanging the children's bedroom door on the wrong side fgs - which, if you think about it, has huge ramifications about what people like MO might or might not have seen through that door (assuming he was ever there looking through it in the first place).

The glib lies remind me of conmen's lies. They can't even get their story straight about who took the bl****tennis photo. If it weren't for the evidence of the EVRD's I would be inclined to say MM was never in PdL in May 2007 at all.

It's about time this nonsense was packed in. You can see the public are not buying it. To think they've had the front to take this national disgrace on a European outing too so that people abroad can gawp at the fatuous British "investigation". It is nothing short of desperate behaviour by some very desperate people.

I'm sick to the back teeth of all this lying and manipulation - a complete insult to the intelligence of people both here and abroad. Whoever's at the back of all this carp had better wise up. Truth will out, and it will take something as simple as Wendy Deng's note to herself to do it.

by Guest 02.12.13 12:05

Mirage wrote:
The glib lies remind me of conmen's lies. They can't even get their story straight about who took the bl****tennis photo. If it weren't for the evidence of the EVRD's I would be inclined to say MM was never in PdL in May 2007 at all.

And so round it goes again, always inexorably back to the same point - the dogs.

by Guest 02.12.13 12:19

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:

Take your point CR, whoever had the items you mention was known to GM , the photo was on KM's camera, he knew he would be asked for a photo of Madeliene and he got someone to print several off pretty quickly, but who?
They obviously wanted to be in control of the image that got out there, it would seem it needed to be an older one as, I fear, the girl who accompanied them to Portugal was NOT Maddie.

That is why, when Redwood talks about drawing everything back to zero, if he is really serious that will involve such as examining the luggage x-rays (if still available) of everybody even tangentially connected to the McCanns. I've personally made no secret of the fact that I believe the nannies who arrived at the OC that week are particularly interesting.

Yes those Nannies are interesting, however imo they've been manipulated by the Mc's into saying things they themselves know aren't true, why I don't know but I don't think it's through loyalty.

I wish Redwood would have taken his zero back to the morning of the 3rd, or just a thought does he know he can't do that because it would most certainly implicate the McCanns and others?

by Mirage 02.12.13 12:21

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Mirage wrote:
The glib lies remind me of conmen's lies. They can't even get their story straight about who took the bl****tennis photo. If it weren't for the evidence of the EVRD's I would be inclined to say MM was never in PdL in May 2007 at all.
And so round it goes again, always inexorably back to the same point - the dogs.

No, you can't get past the dogs.

No one can. Not the Mcs. Not the T7. Not the celebrity sycophants. No one.

No matter what happens, the dogs' verdicts remain.

These animals had the power to make McCann leap out of his seat and rip off a microphone. "Stick to the official line" Justine McGuinness cooed from the sidelines. But the man was rattled. He'd had an answer prepared for everything that day. Everything but the dogs.

They are fond of silencing people.

What delicious irony that they can't ever silence the voices of dumb animals.

by Guest 02.12.13 12:31

Mirage wrote:

What delicious irony that they can't ever silence the voices of dumb animals.

I do sometimes wonder if their failure to anticipate, or account for, the dogs' findings is a sign that they were genuinely stitched up.

by Guest 02.12.13 12:46

Mirage wrote:If there is one thing that infuriates me about the McCanns, it's the way they treat the public as fools.

There is no way on God's earth that the tennis ball photograph Madeleine is the same child as the swimming pool Madeleine.

The child in the tennis ball picture is around five years of age to my eye, at least. The swimming pool photo taken 1,2 or 3 days later (variously testified by amnaesics) is of a child of 3/4 to my eye.

No child aged 3/4 could be a capable ball girl, especially IF a competitive adult male game was in progress. In fact it is dangerous on an adult court. Think of the little tot tripping up the aircraft steps. Think of the tiny tot swinging her legs in the airport bus and ask yourself, did that child holding all the tennis balls fit with that level of maturity?

The adult courts were tightly booked so no playing time would be wasted by those particular adults IMO. Can you imagine them waiting for a little kid to run round picking up then dropping balls for minutes on end, and for her to be out of the way to whack the next ball over the net? There were children's tennis sessions anyway so the whole notion is incredible.

I recall seeing "ghosting" in that photo some time back too. ??? A missing tennis ball. It was in the chin area IIRC.

I have long suspected the tennis photo is of KM and if so there is something so sick at the heart of this case we will take the rest of the century off to get over it.

When you look at the discrepancies in just about every utterance from these two and and their tapas friends, you can see why GM thought confusion was good. Remember him joking and laughing on the balcony a few days later, not a care in the world was there?

To my mind, that confusion has continued apace with the various e-fits on CW, the changes in reconstruction between the different countries' versions - even down to hanging the children's bedroom door on the wrong side fgs - which, if you think about it, has huge ramifications about what people like MO might or might not have seen through that door (assuming he was ever there looking through it in the first place).

The glib lies remind me of conmen's lies. They can't even get their story straight about who took the bl****tennis photo. If it weren't for the evidence of the EVRD's I would be inclined to say MM was never in PdL in May 2007 at all.

It's about time this nonsense was packed in. You can see the public are not buying it. To think they've had the front to take this national disgrace on a European outing too so that people abroad can gawp at the fatuous British "investigation". It is nothing short of desperate behaviour by some very desperate people.

I'm sick to the back teeth of all this lying and manipulation - a complete insult to the intelligence of people both here and abroad. Whoever's at the back of all this carp had better wise up. Truth will out, and it will take something as simple as Wendy Deng's note to herself to do it.

Totaly agree with all you've said Mirage, has you say it could be something so simple that will open up all the lies they have told. They have two children growing up who will question everything, they won't have the control over them that they do now, a PR won't be able to answer the questions, they carry a heavy burden of guilt they know what happened to Madeleine, all the money in the world won't ease that burden it wll get heavier and heavier they have to live with it, they are cold calculating people.

by Hicks 02.12.13 13:07

Mirage wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Mirage wrote:
The glib lies remind me of conmen's lies. They can't even get their story straight about who took the bl****tennis photo. If it weren't for the evidence of the EVRD's I would be inclined to say MM was never in PdL in May 2007 at all.
And so round it goes again, always inexorably back to the same point - the dogs.
No, you can't get past the dogs.

No one can. Not the Mcs. Not the T7. Not the celebrity sycophants. No one.

No matter what happens, the dogs' verdicts remain.

These animals had the power to make McCann leap out of his seat and rip off a microphone. "Stick to the official line" Justine McGuinness cooed from the sidelines. But the man was rattled. He'd had an answer prepared for everything that day. Everything but the dogs.

They are fond of silencing people.

What delicious irony that they can't ever silence the voices of dumb animals.

Yes Mirage, the most telling clue. When asked about the dogs GM was caught completely off guard, his response laid bare the true face of GM, for all to see.

SY cannot get past the dogs either, no matter how much, and for how long the evidence of these two dogs, independently marking the same areas, is ignored.

by **PeterMac** 02.12.13 13:18

You have mentioned the dogs again.
Stand by for a new wave of trolls and shills, here and elsewhere !

by Guest 02.12.13 13:55

PeterMac wrote:You have mentioned the dogs again.
Stand by for a new wave of trolls and shills, here and elsewhere !

The problem is the complete failure of any investigating party to act on the dogs findings. This gives tremendous credence to any claims that their evidence might not be as compelling as first appearances might suggest.

by Guest 02.12.13 14:02

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
PeterMac wrote:You have mentioned the dogs again.
Stand by for a new wave of trolls and shills, here and elsewhere !
The problem is the complete failure of any investigating party to act on the dogs findings. This gives tremendous credence to any claims that their evidence might not be as compelling as first appearances might suggest.

Try telling that to Prout, Gilroy and Lane..........

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

by Guest 02.12.13 14:06

candyfloss wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
PeterMac wrote:You have mentioned the dogs again.
Stand by for a new wave of trolls and shills, here and elsewhere !
The problem is the complete failure of any investigating party to act on the dogs findings. This gives tremendous credence to any claims that their evidence might not be as compelling as first appearances might suggest.
Try telling that to Prout, Gilroy and Lane..........

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

Well, yes. Hence we're back to the same old same old - why the reluctance to bring charges in the McCann case?

by Guest 03.12.13 6:57

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
Clay Regazzoni wrote:
PeterMac wrote:You have mentioned the dogs again.
Stand by for a new wave of trolls and shills, here and elsewhere !
The problem is the complete failure of any investigating party to act on the dogs findings. This gives tremendous credence to any claims that their evidence might not be as compelling as first appearances might suggest.
Try telling that to Prout, Gilroy and Lane..........

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Well, yes. Hence we're back to the same old same old - why the reluctance to bring charges in the McCann case?

CR, by going over the same old same old has you put it it does and has helped in wading through all the muddy water that the McCanns and others have created. Everbody has their own opinion on the reluctance to charge them, what is yours?

I do beleive the evidence is there now and would be backed to the hilt on the release of the missing PJ files and the files the Home Office are holding.

Why is it every time the dogs are mentioned it gets a bit too close for comfort for some people.

TOP DOGS

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

by Guest 03.12.13 9:26

Cherry Blossom wrote:

CR, by going over the same old same old has you put it it does and has helped in wading through all the muddy water that the McCanns and others have created. Everbody has their own opinion on the reluctance to charge them, what is yours?

Don't look at me; I'm as baffled as the next man!

by Guest 03.12.13 10:44

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:

CR, by going over the same old same old has you put it it does and has helped in wading through all the muddy water that the McCanns and others have created. Everbody has their own opinion on the reluctance to charge them, what is yours?

Don't look at me; I'm as baffled as the next man!

Long time since I've heard the word baffled, but you picked the right word where the McCanns and others are concerned, exactly what they have tried to do, but it just doesn't work anymore!!

by Guest 13.12.13 11:19

Cherry Blossom wrote:
canada12 wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:
The above three statements all mention photo's (not posters on A4 Paper)

If these photo's were printed at some point in time who would have the photographic paper?

It would have to be someone local who had a printer and paper at the ready, at that time of night, on short notice. It's not the sort of thing one travels with, really... unless one travels to a destination for the express purpose of printing pictures...?

ETA.. unless Gerry and Kate already had those photos with them, printed in advance, and were travelling with them...
[/font][/color]

The thought had crossed my mind canada12, about them travelling with those photo's, but wasn't it ROB who said the photo came from KM camera?

Reading through the statements the PJ were certainly interested in them, they were also interested in the whereabouts of Robert Murat! it does make you wonder[/quote

Could it be possible the official Madeleine photograph of which GM had several could have been printed off sometime during the day of the 3rd or before the 3rd?

Who would have a computer, printer, already set up and have photographic paper.?

WITNESS STATEMENT OF ARGUIDO: ROBERT MURAT
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

--- He said he had pornography on the computer. He has pictures with women over 18 years. He has no photographs of men. Just naked women, not sexually explicit, not remembering if they were using phallic objects. He has no record of violent sex, or sadomasochism or submission. He does not have images of rape, or fetishes with children or animals. He does not use an encrypted external server or encrypted content

When GM was asked if he knew Robert Murat, he answered "No comment". What if GM knew of RM theough ROB?

Maybe other explanations has to why GM had pre printed photos of Madeleine, The one I would find deeply disturbing is that they brought them with them,

by suep 15.12.13 19:12

[quote="Cherry Blossom"]

Portia wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:[url=http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/_m/maddy_ (12).jpg][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/url]

I have always wondered why Goncalo Amaral chose this photo and the name Maddie on the front cover of his book, but then thinking about it his book is based on the police investigations and official police files.

Is it possible GA was and still is in plain sight, letting all involved know that he knows there were no holiday photos of Madeleine and she was often refered to has Maddie?
Did he? In Belgium its the Iconic Picture

BTW: Always look at the crooked fingers on 'Madeleine' or 'Maddie'
So very strange.

What was amiss with her hands?

Agree about the hands Portia, the photo above and these two show Madeleine with her left arm raised, I do question if there was something not quite right about her left hand?

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

Is the photo below badly photoshopped to cover a problem with the left hand?

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

I have a friend with cerebral palsy whose hand looks like that and there's a condition known as ataxic cerebral palsy-retinal coloboma syndrome...just saying...

by **PeterMac** 15.12.13 20:20

There was also that really weird one of Madeleine being held above a cake in the kitchen, with one leg in a very strangely contorted aspect.
"Almost perfect" ?
Unable to open a sliding door, aged 4 years ?
Struggling to hold four tennis balls, and being congratulated on doing so, aged 4 (-8 days)
Falling up aircraft stairs.
Public emphasis on how mature and perfect she was, playing tennis, dancing, swimming in ice-cold water, wind-surfing, sailing, reading, singing along to inappropriate songs,
knowing the story lines of over 900 episodes of Dr Who . . .

Mild CP ?

Log in for more topics