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

by ultimaThule 17.02.14 20:34

HelenMeg wrote:Also, if he had been truly in the photo, I doubt very much he would have sat there in that position - he would have put his arm around Amelie for the photo. Any father would have
done that, a naturally instinctive move for the photo.

I can't recall what thead it's on but somewhere there's a photo of Madeleine, looking not much more than 10-12 months old, sat next to Gerry and almost hidden by his right leg on what look to be extremely unforgiving garden steps. The child - a baby, in fact - could topple at any moment, yet his arm is nowhere near her and he's gurning for the camera without a thought for her safety.

And he expects the gullible public to believe he had a 'proud moment' when he gazed at his sleeping eldest daughter moments before she was 'taken'?

by DurhamGuy1967 17.02.14 21:21

Tangled Web wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:What if it is to hide the fact that on the 3rd Madeline was wearing a light green t shirt with a green flower on it? The green T shirt found later in a layby on a road to the airport. They couldn't produce this shirt for the police and so would have to hide any trace of it, photo's and all.

It bothers me that they are all totally clear on the description of pyjamas she was allegedly abducted in, but none of the Tapas 9 can recall any other clothes Madeline was wearing during the holiday, apart from when describing photographs. When you have young children you need to be able to spot them in a crowd, you need to know what they are wearing and to notice this and remember becomes automatic.

Sadly, I don't think Madeleine wore many clothes that holiday. I think the last independent sighting of her was on the Sunday.

What about the creche? waiters at meals? why wait so long to arrange for an alleged abduction?

by Watching 17.02.14 21:32

ultimaThule wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:Also, if he had been truly in the photo, I doubt very much he would have sat there in that position - he would have put his arm around Amelie for the photo. Any father would have
done that, a naturally instinctive move for the photo.
I can't recall what thead it's on but somewhere there's a photo of Madeleine, looking not much more than 10-12 months old, sat next to Gerry and almost hidden by his right leg on what look to be extremely unforgiving garden steps. The child - a baby, in fact - could topple at any moment, yet his arm is nowhere near her and he's gurning for the camera without a thought for her safety.

And he expects the gullible public to believe he had a 'proud moment' when he gazed at his sleeping eldest daughter moments before she was 'taken'?

Hello,

A perfect example of how caring Gerry 'wee man' McCann is towards his children is the picture taken on the airport bus on the way out to Portugal. This father of three very young children, sits apart from his wife and children, with not a thought or care that one, two, or all three of his children may fall from the narrow bench seat of the bus as it shook it's way across the tarmac. No protective arm from the proud father across the children to prevent them from falling. He didn't take any of his children to sit on his lap to hold them securely. The wee man preferred to distance himself from his young family, added to which he demonstrated a complete lack of respect for them and other traveller's by uttering profanities.

Proud father?

by Guest 17.02.14 21:56

canada12 wrote:And far too slender.

IMO the left hand in the tennis photo does not look like a young child's hands at all -a young child's hands are far more podgy and they do not have pronounced knuckles even when clutching something - they just have dimples. A young child's fingers are also not as defined as in the photo they are far more fatter and rounder. That looks more like a man's hand cut in.

The arm also does not look right for a young child - again they are much more podgy and are not shaped like that - I would say that is an adults arm.

Also the hand is a different colour to the arm - you can see a clear join. Unless it is a complete arm/hand that has been cut in where the arm is tanned and the hand is not - such as when you would be wearing a glove - such as a golf player?

The more I look at it this picture is just so odd I wonder if, like the make-up picture, it is a coded warning to someone.

All in my own opinion.

by Tangled Web 18.02.14 0:24

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:
Tangled Web wrote:
DurhamGuy1967 wrote:What if it is to hide the fact that on the 3rd Madeline was wearing a light green t shirt with a green flower on it? The green T shirt found later in a layby on a road to the airport. They couldn't produce this shirt for the police and so would have to hide any trace of it, photo's and all.

It bothers me that they are all totally clear on the description of pyjamas she was allegedly abducted in, but none of the Tapas 9 can recall any other clothes Madeline was wearing during the holiday, apart from when describing photographs. When you have young children you need to be able to spot them in a crowd, you need to know what they are wearing and to notice this and remember becomes automatic.

Sadly, I don't think Madeleine wore many clothes that holiday. I think the last independent sighting of her was on the Sunday.
What about the creche? waiters at meals? why wait so long to arrange for an alleged abduction?

I follow the HiDeHo FB group and Lizzy has searched for six years for evidence that Madeleine was alive until Thursday. The only credible proof she has found is from the cleaner's daughter's statement that she saw Madeleine on the Sunday. If you're interested there is a thread on it over there dated 1st Feb. hope it's OK for me to post this. I'm guessing there will be a thread on here too but there is so much to wade through and I forget where I've read things!

by Guest 18.02.14 12:39

Re the statement from the cleaner's daughter, how could anyone who didn't know Madeleine state with certainty that it was her?

Throw all the widely differing photos into the mix and I don't know how a positive identification could be made.

by sami 18.02.14 14:14

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Re the statement from the cleaner's daughter, how could anyone who didn't know Madeleine state with certainty that it was her?

Throw all the widely differing photos into the mix and I don't know how a positive identification could be made.

She could not. Neither would she care enough at the time to pay any particular attention. Two parents, twins and a three year old blonde child. Just another holiday family from UK in another holiday apartment she was cleaning. Although Kate and Gerry like to think otherwise of themselves, I'm sure there was nothing remarkable to any of the MW staff about them. Until the Thursday night of course.

by Tangled Web 18.02.14 14:46

sami wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Re the statement from the cleaner's daughter, how could anyone who didn't know Madeleine state with certainty that it was her?

Throw all the widely differing photos into the mix and I don't know how a positive identification could be made.

She could not. Neither would she care enough at the time to pay any particular attention. Two parents, twins and a three year old blonde child. Just another holiday family from UK in another holiday apartment she was cleaning. Although Kate and Gerry like to think otherwise of themselves, I'm sure there was nothing remarkable to any of the MW staff about them. Until the Thursday night of course.

This is true. If it weren't for the dogs I'd think Madeleine never stepped foot in Portugal. I sometimes wonder if she even existed.

by HelenMeg 18.02.14 17:24

All opinions in this post are my own theories and may not be true.

I was trying to think why Gerry has a need to place himself in the last photo, along with M and A.
I understand that many posters dont support the 'concealment of a swinging week at OC that week' but I
do feel this was the reason for the cover up. I think the last photo was concocted to reflect that it was a family
holiday and parents spent happy times with the children. In reality I suspect that during that afternoon G was swinging, and then later when poor M
died, K was swinging with DP.

by whmon 18.02.14 17:45

I don't think they were swingers. The reason is that they have too much in common with each other for swinging to be the motive for their friendship. If they came from diverse professions I would not be so certain but because most of them are doctors they would have had to broach the subject of swinging amongst themselves at some point for it to happen and I can't really see a group of friends doing that. If I were to approach my friends and suggest swinging they would be horrified as would I be if they approached me with the idea. A member of group of professionals who suggested group swinging would also run the risk of ridicule and gossip in the highly likely event of being turned down. They could have met each other in some sort of 'club' of course but what is the likelihood of a bunch of people all from the same profession meeting under such circumstances?

by Hicks 18.02.14 18:21

HelenMeg wrote:All opinions in this post are my own theories and may not be true.

I was trying to think why Gerry has a need to place himself in the last photo, along with M and A.
I understand that many posters dont support the 'concealment of a swinging week at OC that week' but I
do feel this was the reason for the cover up. I think the last photo was concocted to reflect that it was a family
holiday and parents spent happy times with the children. In reality I suspect that during that afternoon G was swinging, and then later when poor M
died, K was swinging with DP.

I certainly would not discount your theory as I have had thoughts along the same lines. There is something about DP that I find a bit creepy, don't know why.
Wasn't there talk about the spare bed being untidy in the children's room when the
cleaners went in? Can't think what day it was at the moment. Also I remember there was something about a semen stain found on the bed that mysteriously morphed into a saliva stain after it had been sent to the UK for testing.

by Guest 18.02.14 18:51

ultimaThule wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:Also, if he had been truly in the photo, I doubt very much he would have sat there in that position - he would have put his arm around Amelie for the photo. Any father would have
done that, a naturally instinctive move for the photo.
I can't recall what thead it's on but somewhere there's a photo of Madeleine, looking not much more than 10-12 months old, sat next to Gerry and almost hidden by his right leg on what look to be extremely unforgiving garden steps. The child - a baby, in fact - could topple at any moment, yet his arm is nowhere near her and he's gurning for the camera without a thought for her safety.

And he expects the gullible public to believe he had a 'proud moment' when he gazed at his sleeping eldest daughter moments before she was 'taken'?

uT, is this the photo?

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

by ultimaThule 18.02.14 19:12

Ladyinred wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:Also, if he had been truly in the photo, I doubt very much he would have sat there in that position - he would have put his arm around Amelie for the photo. Any father would have
done that, a naturally instinctive move for the photo.
I can't recall what thead it's on but somewhere there's a photo of Madeleine, looking not much more than 10-12 months old, sat next to Gerry and almost hidden by his right leg on what look to be extremely unforgiving garden steps. The child - a baby, in fact - could topple at any moment, yet his arm is nowhere near her and he's gurning for the camera without a thought for her safety.

And he expects the gullible public to believe he had a 'proud moment' when he gazed at his sleeping eldest daughter moments before she was 'taken'?

uT, is this the photo?

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

That's the one, Lir, and thank you very much for locating it. roses

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

Madeleine is such a tiny little tot and there she is perched on steep rocky steps that would do considerably damage to her delicate body and head and she's leaning forward (my heart goes in my mouth just thinking about what could have happened to her) and where's her father's protective arm? He's certainly not making sure she's safe in the way that any responsible and caring parent would do

by Guest 18.02.14 19:16

Right; and just revisit the busride video, where she's sitting in the middle of the back bench without a safety belt or a parent holding her

by **Nina** 18.02.14 19:38

Portia wrote:Right; and just revisit the busride video, where she's sitting in the middle of the back bench without a safety belt or a parent holding her

And who is it asks if she is ok as she stumbles up the steps to the plane? Certainly not her father.

by Lance De Boils 18.02.14 21:00

Someone took video footage of 2 girls climbing the aircraft steps. Then footage of the group on an airport bus.

And then never filmed again during the holiday? nah

by ultimaThule 18.02.14 21:30

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

Again, this is another photo that doesn't look right. The proportions are wrong and Madeleine's left arm appears to be reaching out to her side straight into Gerry's leg.

Would any parent pose for a photo while seated on steep rocky steps made of roughthewn stone such as these with an infant as small as this one without having an arm around her or having her perched on their knee?

To me, this looks as if it was a photo of Gerry to which Madeleine has been added.

by Guest 18.02.14 23:41

ultimaThule wrote:
To me, this looks as if it was a photo of Gerry to which Madeleine has been added.

Yeah, composition all wrong again, just like the last photo.

Most little girls look like their daddies (mine certainly did) but Maddie often looks like Kate. So much so that I think on some of the photos she actually is Kate.

by Liz Eagles 19.02.14 0:11

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

Again, this is another photo that doesn't look right. The proportions are wrong and Madeleine's left arm appears to be reaching out to her side straight into Gerry's leg.

Would any parent pose for a photo while seated on steep rocky steps made of roughthewn stone such as these with an infant as small as this one without having an arm around her or having her perched on their knee?

To me, this looks as if it was a photo of Gerry to which Madeleine has been added.

Could someone on the forum post a credible link to this photograph?

It seems to me Gerry has a bit of a beard going on with his neck.

There are so many weird photo-shopped piccies on t'internet that I feel it important to verify the photo under discussion here and verify the source.

by canada12 19.02.14 1:00

I think it's from the bewk, but I'm not certain.

Here's the page on Pamalam's website that it appears on (scroll down to find it)

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

by Tangled Web 19.02.14 10:24

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
To me, this looks as if it was a photo of Gerry to which Madeleine has been added.

Yeah, composition all wrong again, just like the last photo.

Most little girls look like their daddies (mine certainly did) but Maddie often looks like Kate. So much so that I think on some of the photos she actually is Kate.

I agree. It's instinctive (especially when having a photograph taken) to put a hand on your child, bring them closer to you or lean in towards them. It looks like 'Madeleine' has been added in to a lot of their photo's. Question is, why?

by canada12 19.02.14 10:59

Perhaps in a quest for "perfection" they didn't like the image of Madeleine that was actually in the photos, so they substituted an image that they did like. Perhaps she wasn't paying attention to the camera, or perhaps the image didn't show her "best" side. Perhaps she wasn't even there at the time the photo was taken - although this could easily be verified by simply talking to other people in the picture and asking them - was Madeleine there, and if so, what was she wearing?

by ultimaThule 19.02.14 11:11

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

Again, this is another photo that doesn't look right. The proportions are wrong and Madeleine's left arm appears to be reaching out to her side straight into Gerry's leg.

Would any parent pose for a photo while seated on steep rocky steps made of roughthewn stone such as these with an infant as small as this one without having an arm around her or having her perched on their knee?

To me, this looks as if it was a photo of Gerry to which Madeleine has been added.
Could someone on the forum post a credible link to this photograph?

It seems to me Gerry has a bit of a beard going on with his neck.

There are so many weird photo-shopped piccies on t'internet that I feel it important to verify the photo under discussion here and verify the source.

The wee one's always got 'a bit of a beard going on with his neck'. Even when he's wearing a collar and tie it's clearly visible and I find it most offputting and not at all what one would expect to see on a consultant cardiologist.

In addition to his bedside manner, this particular lack of grooming may form part of the reason why his contract with the private Spire Hospital was shortlived.

In common with his spouse, Gerry is an immensely vain creature who's had a considerable amount of cosmetic work done on his teeth, dyes his ginger hair dark brown, keeps himself fit, and has a penchant for handmade suits with flashy linings, which makes it all the more surprising that he does not wax or shave his neckline. Perhaps he regards this throwback to his neanderthal ancestors as a mark of his masculinity but I personally find it, and him, repulsive.

by russiandoll 19.02.14 11:13

Tangled web.....

Most little girls look like their daddies (mine certainly did) but Maddie often looks like Kate. So much so that I think on some of the photos she actually is Kate.

I have to disagree with this! I look at photos of all the McCann adults and at Maddie's features and I see next to nothing of Kate in her, all I see is McCann.

Fascinating what we see in others' faces.

It would be interesting to see a photo of Gerry's mother when she was younger, because I look at her and can see Maddie in her, Eileen.

by canada12 19.02.14 11:29

If you look closely at the photo...

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

...below Gerry's right knee, and in front of Madeleine's blue dress, there is a large black blob.

If you examine this by blowing the photo up to about 400%, you can see the blob has very indistinct borders, and is superimposed OVER the blue dress.

Additionally, there's an off-white vertical space between the blob and Gerry's leg, which doesn't correspond with the stone step background.

So, why is the blob there? What is it covering up? (besides Madeleine's left leg?)

by HelenMeg 19.02.14 11:42

Hi Canada
How do you blow up the photo 400%? I cant seem to do it

by HelenMeg 19.02.14 11:46

Oh I've just done it and although I cant tell whether the dark patch is superimposed over the top - it does appear too black and untextured compared to rest of step -strange.