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

by canada12 21.12.13 19:13

Châtelaine wrote:
canada12 wrote: [...] the hair sample provided to the police to procure Madeleine's DNA was, iirc, collected by Gerry in an unsupervised manner. So the hair sample could belong to anyone. [...]
***
IIRC the Rothley pillow was taken by a police officer, while Gerry had to wait outside. I'd have to do quite a search to document that. If anyone can confirm or contradict, please do.

ETA Of course, there had been family in the house meanwhile. That would make the pillow unsupervised for some time. Not saying, that this would have any significance. Just an afterthought, that's all.

I thought it was the other way around - that Gerry had gone inside to get the pillow while a police officer waited outside. But my memory could be faulty. smilie

by Woofer 21.12.13 19:35

Uppatoffee wrote this on a thread a couple of years back ;-

"Looking on Ancestry there is another girl, Emily Jane McCann, born in Mendip, Somerset. Her birth was registered in January 2003 and her mother's maiden name is also Healy. I wonder if this is the other twin that Clarrie referred to by accident?! There do not seem to be any other marriage records for other McCanns and Healys at the time for England at least."

Does anyone know what the bit in bold about Clarrie means - did he refer to `the other twin`?

by Genbug 21.12.13 20:38

This all seems very unlikely to me. It may well be that the parents weren't married or had married abroad so wouldn't appear on the UK registers. I'm sure this child was discussed years ago on another forum and found to have no connection.

by Lance De Boils 21.12.13 21:07

Yes, I remember this other McCann-Healy couple being looked into. No connection could be found.

by Briohazard 27.12.13 14:57

Oisin Valentine (pronounced 'ocean')
Madeleine Beth

Both born may 2003, both registered June 2003

And now Emily Jane?

... The mind boggles...

Something stinks here...!

by Guest 27.12.13 15:04

Briohazard, can you explain what stinks? BTW it's not pronounced 'ocean'.

by Briohazard 27.12.13 15:17

Ladyinred wrote:Briohazard, can you explain what stinks? BTW it's not pronounced 'ocean'.

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

And what I think stinks? Perhaps I could have used a different word. I could have said:

"This case really intrigues me, with all the twists, turns and coincidences. The fact the registrations of the three children mentioned above have alerted my senses have me wondering if there is a connection or not. I would like to look into this further, and satisfy my curiosity."

by Daisy 27.12.13 15:45

Briohazard wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Briohazard, can you explain what stinks? BTW it's not pronounced 'ocean'.

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

And what I think stinks? Perhaps I could have used a different word. I could have said:

"This case really intrigues me, with all the twists, turns and coincidences. The fact the registrations of the three children mentioned above have alerted my senses have me wondering if there is a connection or not. I would like to look into this further, and satisfy my curiosity."

The nearest pronunciation (imo) is: Ohsheen a bit like Rowsheen (Roisin)

by Briohazard 27.12.13 15:51

Our accents are probably different. I'm Australian, I pronounce ocean as oh-shen, pretty much the same as how you've written it, perhaps without as much emphasis on the second 'e'

Anyway, it's irrelevant, I only included that snippet as when I first read the name I read it like oy-seen, and I thought it would be nice to save someone a google search. Sorry! Disregard.

Lets get back on topic :)

by Monty Heck 27.12.13 18:14

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:26 pm

From ROB’s rogatory, part three.

1578 “Did you have any photo of Madeleine in your possession”?

Reply “Erm we got a photo of Madeleine later on but this is two hours later, erm”.

1578 “So who gave it to you”?

Reply “Okay well certain, I’m not quite sure what the, the initial, the question made it sound like whoever had one in our possession anyway, I didn’t, erm we got a, we erm, after a portion of my searches, we got hold of erm Kate’s camera, err looked through the digital cam to try and find a picture of Madeleine reasonably recently, reasonably face on and, and with her being the main, the main character on the photograph, erm clearly that that was going through, there were quite a few pictures that were not ideal, so we, we went through those, err and then printed that off, erm all of this taking a reasonable amount of time to try and get hold of equipment and have offices opened and etc., etc”.

1578 “Okay. What kind of photo was it”?

Reply “The, it was a, it was a photo of err, it was the one that was being circulated in the, in the days immediately afterwards, I’ve seen so many photographs of her, of Madeleine since, I think it was a photograph that had been taken of her and a relatively number of weeks before and I think with a slightly different, slightly longer hair, erm but it was, it was a fa, it was a fa, it was a relatively full on sort of face on photograph, err and it was printed on a standard size erm four by six err inch, as you know, using the equipment that the people had and we ran off a number of copies of this, erm and several I think were given to the, the GNR”.

1578 “I was going to ask you the next question”.

Reply “Sorry”.

1578 “Was, who did you give the photo to”?

Reply “Yeah well I think the ones that I had, I took, you know cos obviously they were printing out, you know they were slow you know, we really wanted to get them to the Police fairly quickly, so I took the first couple of copies and took those round to, I think the GNR staff, I presume they were the origin, you know original uniformed Officers, it wasn’t the PJ, it was well before the PJ arrived, erm there were other copies printed off which I don’t know where they got to but I know that Mark WARNER, somebody in Mark WARNER made a poster, or at least an A4 err saying that there’d been, you know, there’d been a, err an abduction and that Madeleine was missing and that was circulated around the next morning, so somebody had, had, had that photograph and used it for that poster but I took, I don’t know two or three copies maybe and gave them to the Police. I actually think ultimately there may have been more copies printed off and somebody else gave even more copies to them as well, err and I think some of the other copies were shown, were just shown to people around who were going on the searches but erm personally”.

1578 “The copies that you had, you only gave to the Police”?

Reply “I gave it to the Police, just to the Police”.

Unquote

The above must, surely, take the prize for the most unwilling, absurd and halting replies to what are essentially basic and straightforward questions, in this entire case. That they stand out is really saying something when there are so many examples of meandering evasiveness within the Rogatory interviews. That every response is qualified by a mass of unnecessary detail and downright waffle is mind boggling, coming as they do, not from some petty criminal trying to evade charges being made against him, but from a gentleman attempting to assist (apparently) the investigation into the disappearance of his friends' child.

The replies to "So who gave it to you", “Okay. What kind of photo was it”?, “Was, who did you give the photo to”?, would almost be comedy gold were this not such a serious matter. Rather than giving the direct and succinct information these simple questions demanded the responses appear to amount to no more than evasive drivel, therefore raising the question why, under these particular circumstances, would ROB consider these in any way appropriate?

by sammyc 27.12.13 19:48

Monty Heck wrote:

The above must, surely, take the prize for the most unwilling, absurd and halting replies to what are essentially basic and straightforward questions, in this entire case. That they stand out is really saying something when there are so many examples of meandering evasiveness within the Rogatory interviews. That every response is qualified by a mass of unnecessary detail and downright waffle is mind boggling,

Well said Monty Heck - and can everybody please bear in mind that this is one of a group of UK Doctors, on the same holiday where a 3 year old disappeared, who waffled, stalled, stuttered, over-elaborated all their initial PJ , then second PJ and then Leics Police statements. It makes me wonder how those same Doctors would explain any illness, diagnosis, prognosis etc in to one of their patients.

by Monty Heck 27.12.13 21:18

sammyc wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:

The above must, surely, take the prize for the most unwilling, absurd and halting replies to what are essentially basic and straightforward questions, in this entire case. That they stand out is really saying something when there are so many examples of meandering evasiveness within the Rogatory interviews. That every response is qualified by a mass of unnecessary detail and downright waffle is mind boggling,

Well said Monty Heck - and can everybody please bear in mind that this is one of a group of UK Doctors, on the same holiday where a 3 year old disappeared, who waffled, stalled, stuttered, over-elaborated all their initial PJ , then second PJ and then Leics Police statements. It makes me wonder how those same Doctors would explain any illness, diagnosis, prognosis etc in to one of their patients.

Yes, as you say SammyC, this from a coterie of the NHS's finest on not one but 3, or in some cases more occasions. For most people, the release of the Rogatory interview transcripts might be a more likely cause for any profound depression or despair. Anyone would be cut to the quick by such profound betrayal of not only themselves, left languishing as arguido in no small part due to the contradictions, evasiveness and refusal to offer any genuine concrete assistance to the investigation exposed by the files' release, and even more so by such an apparent betrayal of their still missing child.

In this case however there were no reported feelings of being let down by their holiday pals, no fury that the investigation stalled due to these less than helpful offerings. Fury there has been in aplenty however, directed elsewhere, is seems, rather than at those friends whose lack of productive engagement with the police helped bring the investigation to it's knees. Curious to say the least.

by Daisy 27.12.13 21:21

sammyc wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:

The above must, surely, take the prize for the most unwilling, absurd and halting replies to what are essentially basic and straightforward questions, in this entire case. That they stand out is really saying something when there are so many examples of meandering evasiveness within the Rogatory interviews. That every response is qualified by a mass of unnecessary detail and downright waffle is mind boggling,

It beggars belief doesn't it. This statement alone rings deafening alarm bells.

by Monty Heck 27.12.13 21:30

Daisy wrote:
sammyc wrote:
Monty Heck wrote:

The above must, surely, take the prize for the most unwilling, absurd and halting replies to what are essentially basic and straightforward questions, in this entire case. That they stand out is really saying something when there are so many examples of meandering evasiveness within the Rogatory interviews. That every response is qualified by a mass of unnecessary detail and downright waffle is mind boggling,

It beggars belief doesn't it. This statement alone rings deafening alarm bells.

It does indeed and belief beggared even more given SY's announcement that such individuals are NOT persons of interest!

by loopzdaloop 28.12.13 1:54

Hicks wrote:Are there any photos of Kate during her pregnancy with Madeleine, or the twins?

I have pondered on the fact that Kate could have used a surrogate mother. Could this be the reason Kate's medical records were denied to the PJ? I would imagine -though I don't know the legality- that such an arrangement would remain secret should they so wish.

It would also explain Kate's behaviour. There is a real lack of emotion when talking or recalling stories about Madeleine. As we have all witnessed there are many examples but this little gem I find incredulous. During Crimewatch the MC'S were asked if there was a Madeleine shaped hole in their lives, the reply? Kate missed her on special occasions!

I am convinced that Madeleine sadly died in the apartment that night due to neglect. It is my opinion that the neglect came about due to the rather poor relationship between M and her parents... for what ever reason.

This is a very interesting point. I don't think any pictures of Kate Pregnant have been released.

With regards to medical conditions, I know people are leaning towards Cerebral Palsy here, but children born via IVF are at a higher risk of developing autism. There is also a correlation between ocular coloboma and autism.

As for behavioural manifestations of autism

*Acting maturer than she was
*knowing all the storylines to the doctor who episodes

would be considered indicators. As might 'sleep difficulties'.
The movements of her arms, could be viewed in terms of 'flapping' and the different movements common for children with autism.

It is suggested that traits of children with autism can often be seen in their parents.
If I was being mean I would point out her parents lack of emotional responsivity, their concrete thinking and their distinct lack of empathy.

by loopzdaloop 28.12.13 2:15

canada12 wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:This makes interesting reading, thanks to Joana Morais

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

This indeed is very interesting and very relevant too.

The above article states:
The date of birth in her passport - the only identity document given by the family to the Judiciary Police - is May 12, 2003 and that is the day when the parents celebrate the birthday of their missing daughter. However, in accordance to a document of the Leicestershire police - area of residence of the McCann family in England - which was given to the PJ 15 days after her disappearance, Madeleine McCann was born on March 12, 2003 and was registered by her parents on June, 5 of that same year.

Given the difference of three months between the birth and the registration, the same report alerted to the possibility of the girl having another father. But DNA tests would confirm Gerry's paternity. Maddie's sample, the one used for the tests performed in an English laboratory, was a hair taken from her room in Leicestershire, assumed to being hers since it was proven that it didn't belong to her younger siblings.

The parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, never explained the differences in the birthday dates and the anniversary, and why they took three months to register the girl. Sources close to the investigation assured to CM that there were never answers to those questions.

So Emily Jane McCann's birth month is listed as January 2003.
And according to the above article, Madeleine's birthdate is March 12 2003.
I'm actually wondering if the May 12 2003 to March 12 2003 difference might have been a typo?
But even if it's not a typo, the hair sample provided to the police to procure Madeleine's DNA was, iirc, collected by Gerry in an unsupervised manner. So the hair sample could belong to anyone.

Was it ever established why there is the discrepancy in birthdates for Madeleine?
Is it possible Madeleine's actual birth date is January 2003? And that's why she looks older in many photos? A difference of 6 months is quite a bit when you're dealing with a toddler.

So Emily Jane and Madeleine were twins, born on the same day.
However, something traumatic occurred around their birth that resulted in a delay registering Madeleine and Emily 'disappearing' from available record.
According to this article in the guardian --> http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2009/aug/06/fertility-problems-nhs Somerset max cycles of IVF is 2 whereas Leicestershire allow one.

It could be presumed that if Kate and Gerry would have had a cycle themselves in Leicestershire and it failed... then they might look for a surrogate and go for the second round elsewhere... which would be allowed in somerset.

IF, there was a surrogate this could explain the delay in registration of the birth as a birth certificate would have to be reissued.
However, If surrogate mother experienced a trauma during birth (and the loss of one child) the doctors would have let her have 2/3 months before letting her pass the child on. Perhaps, Maddie was touch and go also and mother's breast milk or intensive care was felt to be the best place for her.

As someone also mentioned earlier, this might explain the perceived lack of attachment between parents and child.

by jeanmonroe 28.12.13 3:18

As someone also mentioned earlier, this might explain the perceived lack of attachment between parents and child.
____________________________________________________________________

Gerry mccann proudly talked about her birth and said the following "She was born ALMOST PERFECT"

But not as 'perfect' as 'disappeared' Emily Jane, possibly?

by jeanmonroe 28.12.13 15:51

Was, is, the 'disappeared' Emily possibly one of JT's, E**a or E**e?

by Tombraider 28.12.13 17:23

Woofer wrote:Uppatoffee wrote this on a thread a couple of years back ;-

"Looking on Ancestry there is another girl, Emily Jane McCann, born in Mendip, Somerset. Her birth was registered in January 2003 and her mother's maiden name is also Healy. I wonder if this is the other twin that Clarrie referred to by accident?! There do not seem to be any other marriage records for other McCanns and Healys at the time for England at least."

Does anyone know what the bit in bold about Clarrie means - did he refer to `the other twin`?

Hi Woofer, with regard the ref. to Clarrie's comment about the other twins.

Video has now been whoosh clicked J
CTV Newsnet:Clarence Mitchell
Clarence is speaking to CTV presenter about the McCanns Christmas video message. At approx 1.30 in interview Clarence is telling the interviewer how hard Christmas will be for the McCanns - 'they are aware of their other twins, Sean and Amelie'.

Also possible reference to ‘ other ‘ twins.

Discrepancy - Crying Episodes - the 5:38 time landmark
This sounds like Gerry says - " One of the err other twins was crying "

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

by Guest 29.12.13 12:08

jeanmonroe wrote:Was, is, the 'disappeared' Emily possibly one of JT's, E**a or E**e?

It does make you wonder, photos placed together ROB's daughter E**a, one could be taken for the other, same smile, chin, it's uncanny.

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

Wonder what E**a's birth date is?

by Guest 29.12.13 12:46

Cherry Blossom wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Was, is, the 'disappeared' Emily possibly one of JT's, E**a or E**e?

It does make you wonder, photos placed together ROB's daughter E**a, one could be taken for the other, same smile, chin, it's uncanny.

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

Wonder what E**a's birth date is?

***
IMO the photo you're referring to [with the sunglasses?] is not E**a O'B, but Payne's daughter L**y

by Guest 29.12.13 12:54

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

There are obscured photos here of both the elder Payne and O'Brien girls. The one with the glasses must I think be the latter.

by Daisy 29.12.13 13:05

Châtelaine wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Was, is, the 'disappeared' Emily possibly one of JT's, E**a or E**e?

It does make you wonder, photos placed together ROB's daughter E**a, one could be taken for the other, same smile, chin, it's uncanny.

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

Wonder what E**a's birth date is?
***
IMO the photo you're referring to [with the sunglasses?] is not E**a O'B, but Payne's daughter L**y

Yes, if it's this photo you mean, It's DP's eldest daughter. I think she was under 3 yr old at the time of this pic.

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

by Woofer 29.12.13 13:09

Tombraider wrote:
Woofer wrote:Uppatoffee wrote this on a thread a couple of years back ;-

"Looking on Ancestry there is another girl, Emily Jane McCann, born in Mendip, Somerset. Her birth was registered in January 2003 and her mother's maiden name is also Healy. I wonder if this is the other twin that Clarrie referred to by accident?! There do not seem to be any other marriage records for other McCanns and Healys at the time for England at least."

Does anyone know what the bit in bold about Clarrie means - did he refer to `the other twin`?

Hi Woofer, with regard the ref. to Clarrie's comment about the other twins.

Video has now been whoosh clicked J
CTV Newsnet:Clarence Mitchell
Clarence is speaking to CTV presenter about the McCanns Christmas video message. At approx 1.30 in interview Clarence is telling the interviewer how hard Christmas will be for the McCanns - 'they are aware of their other twins, Sean and Amelie'.

Also possible reference to ‘ other ‘ twins.

Discrepancy - Crying Episodes - the 5:38 time landmark
This sounds like Gerry says - " One of the err other twins was crying "

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

Thanks for that info Tombraider thumbsup

by Guest 29.12.13 13:09

Daisy, that has to be Jane Tanner's daughter - she was then about a month short of her 4th birthday. The girl in the striped top in the photos in my link is the Paynes' daughter who was nearer to 3 than 4.

Log in for more topics