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

by Hicks 17.09.13 17:49

Cherry Blossom wrote:
Hicks wrote:
Hicks wrote:
Ayniia wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:
Kate Mccann: The night she went missing there was about 20 seconds of disbelief where I thought 'that can't be right'. I was checking for her. Then there was panic and fear. That was the first thing that hit. I was screaming her name. I ran to the group. Everyone was the same. It was just total fear. I never thought for one second that she'd walked out. I knew someone had been in the apartment because of the way it had been left. But I knew she wouldn't do that anyway. There wasn't a shadow of a doubt in my mind she'd been taken.
She never thought for one second that she walked out, when just days before ( as said by someone I don't recall who ) Madeleine had walked out and hid in the garden?
As to the last photo I don't believe it was taken the day they say it was, but how could I when most of the things they say are not true? Why did it only surfaced after Gerry went to the UK? The supposed pictures of the vacation are all so weird. I can't believe the tennis photo and the last pool picture were taken just days apart. Then if I look at the Donegal pictures then I get a huge headache.
Someone has been busy!

I have tried to post several links relating to the interview where Kate's mother said that M was a sleepwalker and because of that she took medication. Every link I have found so far has been removed.

I will keep trying.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Hicks, First time I've heard the name Guilhem Buttut, and him seeing hard evidence on pill overdose. This is interesting reading with info about KM's diary:

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

Is this why she made such a hue and cry about it being out of her hands?

This is very interesting indeed, it would make a lot of things suddenly make sense, especially the 'make up photo'. Think about what we have said recently about the eyes.

If M had got hold of sleeping pills whilst she was 'unsupervised' it would account for the words PF heard .." we've let her down".

For what reason would this evidence be withheld though ?

Another link to this subject.

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

by Guest 18.09.13 13:55

Hicks, you raise some interesting points, is there a thread on the subject?

Back to topic

snipped form sharoni's post

Another question is how did this camera get into the hands of a Hampshire Police Officer who examined it on Tuesday 8 May, apparently in his own home.

Who took it there, presumably by plane, and on whose authority?

Were any images deleted from the memory stick? I think they were. Who deleted them and why?

Also, we are talking about 'the McCanns' camera' as if they only had one camera. Did they perhaps have more than one?

Another question: why are there so few photos of her that week?

Plus, who actually took the 'tennis balls' photo?

Hampshire constabulary

Witness Statement

Statement of: Stuart William Martin

Occupation: Detective Constable 1755

Date: 9th May 2007

snipped

2. On 8th May at 21.00 hours, the following was delivered to my home address by PC 178 Barham, requesting they be examined to establish if they contained pictures and video footage of a hotel complex in Praia da Luz.

3. Video tape from Sony Handicam Video Camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07 (NALF 1)

On 9th May 2007 at 08.30 I delivered this video camera in the sealed bag number CD 48113 to the imaging unit at Hampshire Police Support headquarters, Netley for examination. I conducted no examination of this bag and contents.

Why didn't he examin this video camera has he did the others?

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

I've found nothing on who requested they be sent to Hampshire, maybe the PJ didn't know they'd gone and only recieved the report back. Were they sent before PJ could get their hands on them?

by sar 18.09.13 14:10

Interesting conclusion to the telegraph article. Wonder what the linguists make of this?

"As far as Kate and I are concerned there is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine is dead. We are 100 per cent together on this, not one grain of suspicion about each other."

by **PeterMac** 18.09.13 14:47

sar wrote:Interesting conclusion to the telegraph article. Wonder what the linguists make of this?

"As far as Kate and I are concerned there is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine is dead. We are 100 per cent together on this, not one grain of suspicion about each other."

It is a very strange statement certainly.
"As far as Kate and I are concerned there is no evidence" seems to imply that as far as other people are concerned - there might well be.
What can it possibly mean ?
That they are deliberately ignoring or blocking out the evidence of her death, as too painful for contemplate and have told themselves that until they see a body they 'dare not believe it'. ?
And then in the second sentence it changes dramatically to talk about "suspicion"
Suspicion of what, precisely.
Why put those two opposing concepts in the same paragraph, or even on the same day.
They are not linked
Unless of course . . . .

Does Hobs have a view, I wonder.

by jeanmonroe 18.09.13 15:01

Hampshire constabulary
Witness Statement

Statement of: Stuart William Martin

Occupation: Detective Constable 1755

Date: 9th May 2007

2. On 8th May at 21.00 hours, the following was delivered to my home address by PC 178 Barham, requesting they be examined to establish if they contained pictures and video footage of a hotel complex in Praia da Luz.

3. Video tape from Sony Handicam Video Camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07 (NALF 1)
____________________________________________________________________

What was on that VIDEO TAPE?

It seems to imply that it was in use 2 DAYS after Madeleine went 'missing' (up to 5th May 2007)

WHOSE camera was the video tape recorded on?

WHO owned the Sony Handicam Video Camera?

Video being checked in case there were 'inappropiate' images of someone up to 'no good'?
Video being checked in case it might have caught a 'crime' being carried out by certain 'people' or 'holidaying group'?
Video being checked in case a 'staging' might have been caught on it?

by tiny 18.09.13 15:06

jeanmonroe wrote:Hampshire constabulary
Witness Statement

Statement of: Stuart William Martin

Occupation: Detective Constable 1755

Date: 9th May 2007

2. On 8th May at 21.00 hours, the following was delivered to my home address by PC 178 Barham, requesting they be examined to establish if they contained pictures and video footage of a hotel complex in Praia da Luz.

3. Video tape from Sony Handicam Video Camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07 (NALF 1)
_____________________________________________________________
What was on that VIDEO TAPE?

It seems to imply that it was in use 2 DAYS after Madeleine went 'missing' (5th May 2007)

WHOSE camera was the video tape recorded on?

WHO owned the Sony Handicam Video Camera?

Video being checked in case there were 'inappropiate' images of someone up to 'no good'
Video being checked in case it might have caught a 'crime' being carried out by certain 'people' or 'holidaying group'?

by Guest 18.09.13 15:51

Although Martin has said what he did and didn't do it does seem unusual no names are given to who owns what item.

Further down he says

18. Using my forensic software I was able to locate 73 pictures files in the unallocated clusters which had been deleted and were no longer accessible to the camera user.

19. I produce a report containing each of these picture identification reference SWM/3019/01 to SWM/3019/43.

20. I produce a compact disk SWM/3019/44 containing pictures SWM/3019/01 to SWM/3019/43 and report SWM3019/45. I have also copied the pictures and the folders as they appear on the cards, to this disk.

Is he saying he recovered the 73 deleted pictures and transfered them to disc?

See also Holiday photos list

File notes - 9 May:
PDF Apenso Desc.
12 549 Analysis of CD delivered by GM
13 550 Analysis of CD delivered by M Wright
14 551 Image grouping index: (1)Apartments; (2)Ocean Club; (3)Beach
15 552 Blank page
16 553 Receipt of images dated 8 May
17 554 Receipt of images dated 8 May (same words; different signature)
18 555 Blank page

12, 13, very confusing, as usual!

by aiyoyo 18.09.13 16:01

Cherry Blossom wrote:Hicks, you raise some interesting points, is there a thread on the subject?

Back to topic

snipped form sharoni's post

Another question is how did this camera get into the hands of a Hampshire Police Officer who examined it on Tuesday 8 May, apparently in his own home.

Who took it there, presumably by plane, and on whose authority?

Were any images deleted from the memory stick? I think they were. Who deleted them and why?

Also, we are talking about 'the McCanns' camera' as if they only had one camera. Did they perhaps have more than one?

Another question: why are there so few photos of her that week?

Plus, who actually took the 'tennis balls' photo?

Hampshire constabulary

Witness Statement

Statement of: Stuart William Martin

Occupation: Detective Constable 1755

Date: 9th May 2007

snipped

2. On 8th May at 21.00 hours, the following was delivered to my home address by PC 178 Barham, requesting they be examined to establish if they contained pictures and video footage of a hotel complex in Praia da Luz.

3. Video tape from Sony Handicam Video Camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07 (NALF 1)

On 9th May 2007 at 08.30 I delivered this video camera in the sealed bag number CD 48113 to the imaging unit at Hampshire Police Support headquarters, Netley for examination. I conducted no examination of this bag and contents.

Why didn't he examin this video camera has he did the others?

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

I've found nothing on who requested they be sent to Hampshire, maybe the PJ didn't know they'd gone and only recieved the report back. Were they sent before PJ could get their hands on them?

Yeah, he received the video camera on the 8th, then returned it the next day to another Police HQ, without examining it. Believable?
Who is going to be able to prove the veracity of his statement one way or another?

Who authorised for it to be sent to HIS HOME in the first place ?
Why was it not sent directly to the Hamshire Police Support headquarters?
Why was there a need to be routed to his HIS HOME first? For what purpose?
Either he has the proper tool and proper record-keeping- procedures to examine it or he hasn;t.
If he hasn't who directed for it to be sent to his private address when this is an official and sensitive job?

by Guest 18.09.13 18:09

PeterMac wrote:
sar wrote:Interesting conclusion to the telegraph article. Wonder what the linguists make of this?

"As far as Kate and I are concerned there is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine is dead. We are 100 per cent together on this, not one grain of suspicion about each other."
It is a very strange statement certainly.
"As far as Kate and I are concerned there is no evidence" seems to imply that as far as other people are concerned - there might well be.
What can it possibly mean ?
That they are deliberately ignoring or blocking out the evidence of her death, as too painful for contemplate and have told themselves that until they see a body they 'dare not believe it'. ?
And then in the second sentence it changes dramatically to talk about "suspicion"
Suspicion of what, precisely.
Why put those two opposing concepts in the same paragraph, or even on the same day.
They are not linked
Unless of course . . . .

Does Hobs have a view, I wonder.

Perhaps the evidence has been destroyed,or is otherwise beyond retrieving, and the McCs know that: 'find the body and prove we did it'
They do not suspect the other? Quite. Because one or both of them know(s) for a fact that it's not the other but he/she himself/herself what dunnit?

by Guest 18.09.13 18:26

aiyoyo wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:Hicks, you raise some interesting points, is there a thread on the subject?

Back to topic

snipped form sharoni's post

Another question is how did this camera get into the hands of a Hampshire Police Officer who examined it on Tuesday 8 May, apparently in his own home.

Who took it there, presumably by plane, and on whose authority?

Were any images deleted from the memory stick? I think they were. Who deleted them and why?

Also, we are talking about 'the McCanns' camera' as if they only had one camera. Did they perhaps have more than one?

Another question: why are there so few photos of her that week?

Plus, who actually took the 'tennis balls' photo?

Hampshire constabulary

Witness Statement

Statement of: Stuart William Martin

Occupation: Detective Constable 1755

Date: 9th May 2007

snipped

2. On 8th May at 21.00 hours, the following was delivered to my home address by PC 178 Barham, requesting they be examined to establish if they contained pictures and video footage of a hotel complex in Praia da Luz.

3. Video tape from Sony Handicam Video Camera Re Praia da Luz holiday 28/4/07-5/5/07 (NALF 1)

On 9th May 2007 at 08.30 I delivered this video camera in the sealed bag number CD 48113 to the imaging unit at Hampshire Police Support headquarters, Netley for examination. I conducted no examination of this bag and contents.

Why didn't he examin this video camera has he did the others?

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

I've found nothing on who requested they be sent to Hampshire, maybe the PJ didn't know they'd gone and only recieved the report back. Were they sent before PJ could get their hands on them?
Yeah, he received the video camera on the 8th, then returned it the next day to another Police HQ, without examining it. Believable?
Who is going to be able to prove the veracity of his statement one way or another?

Who authorised for it to be sent to HIS HOME in the first place ?
Why was it not sent directly to the Hamshire Police Support headquarters?
Why was there a need to be routed to his HIS HOME first? For what purpose?
Either he has the proper tool and proper record-keeping- procedures to examine it or he hasn;t.
If he hasn't who directed for it to be sent to his private address when this is an official and sensitive job?

According to Martin, the videocamera, which apparently had been and had run in PdL till 05/05/2007, was delivered to his home address by a PC 178 Barham. After office hours, at 21.00 hrs.

So we know how it reached Martin.

What we don't know is how it reached this PC 178 Barham.

Or where
Or when
Or why
Or how

And why, at that extremely early date, would the Hampshire Police be in any way involved in the case? And who is PC 178 Barham?

Do we know if any of the Tapas returned home between 5/5/2007 and 8/5/2007, and -perhaps- lived in the Hampshire region?
Maybe somebody holidaying in PdL on May 5th 2007 did get cold feet and wanted to point the UK police -any police in the UK- in a certain direction?

by **PeterMac** 18.09.13 18:39

Is there a report about what was found on the video /
If not. Why not?

Even a short statement "nothing of value to the investigation was found . . ." would be enough.
You can't just "lose' evidence. everything has to be followed through

by tiny 18.09.13 18:43

Seems to me that the mccanns are being well protected,this case should have been wrapped up at least 5 years ago.

by Nereid 18.09.13 19:20

According to Martin, the videocamera, which apparently had been and had run in PdL till 05/05/2007, was delivered to his home address by a PC 178 Barham. After office hours, at 21.00 hrs.

So we know how it reached Martin.

What we don't know is how it reached this PC 178 Barham.

Or where
Or when
Or why
Or how

And why, at that extremely early date, would the Hampshire Police be in any way involved in the case? And who is PC 178 Barham?

Do we know if any of the Tapas returned home between 5/5/2007 and 8/5/2007, and -perhaps- lived in the Hampshire region?
Maybe somebody holidaying in PdL on May 5th 2007 did get cold feet and wanted to point the UK police -any police in the UK- in a certain direction?

There are a PC Clive Barham and a Sgt Glen Barham in Hampshire Constabulary.

I also don't understand the home delivery, especially since Martin received it at 21.00 on 8th May. He passed the video camera to imaging unit at Hampshire Police Support headquarters, Netley for examination the next morning at 8.30 am. And only then commenced the examination of the cards/camera. So the two sealed bags were sitting at his home for 11 hours? Why?

So DC Martin studied at Liverpool University and in May 2007 was with the High Tech Crime Unit in Hampshire.

"High Tech Crime Unit
The High Tech Crime Unit (HTCU) provides a service to investigators on Area and specialist departments within Hampshire Constabulary.
The High Tech Crime Unit undertakes the forensic examination and retrieval of evidence or intelligence from computers, computer-related media and other digital devices

Following a restructure of the Scientific Services Department (SSD), HTCU now falls under the umbrella of SSD and will be managed by Detective Inspector Mark Gregory. It is intended that this change will bring the specialist skills and technologies of the HTCU within the management of the Scientific Services Department to ensure the organisation receives an effective service level for all investigations. The move will also ensure that there will be no duplication of effort within the force.
The unit is managed by a detective sergeant and comprises of four detective constables, as well as five police staff who are all forensic computer examiners. It also has an office manager and a dedicated IT support person.
Staff from the unit continue to offer training input on high-tech crime procedures for student officer courses, initial CID courses and for other departments within Hampshire Constabulary. This ensures that the constabulary continues to provide a robust and knowledgeable service to the residents of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight."

by Ribisl 18.09.13 19:23

PeterMac wrote:Is there a report about what was found on the video /
If not. Why not?

Even a short statement "nothing of value to the investigation was found . . ." would be enough.
You can't just "lose' evidence. everything has to be followed through

But all manner of vital pieces of evidence have been going awol in this case from the day one, with the rare exception of Cuddle Cat which was suddenly replicating itself faster than rabbits in Kate's hands.

by **Hobs** 18.09.13 20:07

sar wrote:Interesting conclusion to the telegraph article. Wonder what the linguists make of this?

"As far as Kate and I are concerned there is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine is dead. We are 100 per cent together on this, not one grain of suspicion about each other."

I agree Petermac, the sentence make strange bedmates.

"As far as Kate and I are concerned there is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine is dead.

He leaves it open for others including the tapas 7 to be concerned there is evidence to suggest Madeleine is dead.
Is there perhaps evidence which points to another member of the group which them points to payne and oldfield both of whom have admitted visiting apartment 5a

He uses the word suggest rather than prove, show or indicate.

It tells there is evidence which would suggest something else if not dead.
What evidence is there to suggest something else when he has repeatedly claimed their is no evidence of serious harm.
Following this line to it's logical conclusion, if there is no evidence to suggest death, no evidence to suggest serious harm and no evidence of an abduction what does the evidence suggest?

Madeleine is dead is a passive statement which is unexpected.

Given she has been allegedly abducted by a paedophile, i would expect to see active words such as killed or murdered, meaning death was done to her rather than her passively dying.
It is well known that paedophile abductors can and do kill their victims either deliberately to conceal the crime or accidentally during the crime.
Statistics alone show that when a child goes missing and it is non custodial then the likelihood of the child being found alive diminishes after a few hours to pretty much nonexistent after 48.
There are exceptions as we have seen in the news, in these cases none of the victims have been toddlers, all have been pubescent, prepubescent or older teens.
In each case the victim has been kept hidden and repeatedly raped and abused even to being forced to bear their rapists child(ren)
A 3 yr does not fit the pattern

Why then does gerry use a passive statement to describe something rather than active statement?
Is he minimising what happened, she died it's not our fault...
Is he leaking marbles and telling us she is dead but not by deliberate act as in premeditated homicide?

This allows for perhaps death by sedation, sedation and a fall, being pushed resulting in a fatal injury in a spur of the moment event such as a flash of temper?
It still doesn't explain why they did not call 911 and attempt rescusitation especially given the number of doctors in the group, after all accidents happen.
This leads to wondering if they didn't act because there was evidence that would need explaining, evidence perhaps that could not be passed off as accidental.

Madeleine is dead is an embedded statement, it is also the end of the sentence distancing the dead Madeleine from kate and gerry and also the word evidence.

We are 100 per cent together on this, not one grain of suspicion about each other."
This sentence intrigues me, the reason being it's proximity to the phrase Madeleine is dead.
Here he is telling us the truth and also linking himself and kate to the phrase.
Look where he pauses.

Madeleine is dead, we are 100% togeather on this.
Note the pronoun WE which is used to signify unity and co-operation.
Note the proximity of the phrase Madeleine is dead to We are 100 per cent together on this.
They are adjacent yet she is distanced from kate and gerry by evidence.
This is close that is distancing
They are close to Madeleine being dead, which given their claims over the years that she is still alive, is unexpected.
This then leads to questions about the fund and their demands for donations if they know she is dead.
Why is he admitting unity and co-operation on the the phrase Madeleine is dead?
This is strange given their repeated claims of no evidence she has come to serious harm despite being allegedly abducted by a paedophile.
There must then be evidence she has come to harm if not serious harm.
I would also ask what kate and gerry define as serious harm.
Does the unity mean they are involved in some way or that they have guilty knowledge and thus the fund which they claim is for searching for a live Madeleine is a fraud (since they know she is dead)

"Not one grain of suspicion about each other."
Notice no pronoun in this phrase, he doesn't say I, she or even the expected WE.
If he can't take ownership of the statement we can't do it for him.
If he can't say he has no grain of suspicion about kate and vice versa then who is suspicious of whom and why?
he also makes no mention of a grain of suspicion about anyone else which is strange given the number of people who were checking on the children especially oldfield.

Why does evidence change to suspicion?
A change in language is a change in reality, what brings about the change?
Evidence relates to Madeleine being dead.
Suspicion relates to each other.
There is no mention in regard to suspicion of what?
Since there are no pronouns , we don't even know who the suspicion is from, he doesn't tell us it is each other or the expected we.
What then is being concealed?
Is this perhaps a veiled threat that if something happens suspicion will be made and directed.
As these are gerry's words is he making sure loose cannon kate toes the line?

by Guest 18.09.13 20:57

Nereid wrote:
According to Martin, the videocamera, which apparently had been and had run in PdL till 05/05/2007, was delivered to his home address by a PC 178 Barham. After office hours, at 21.00 hrs.

So we know how it reached Martin.

What we don't know is how it reached this PC 178 Barham.

Or where
Or when
Or why
Or how

And why, at that extremely early date, would the Hampshire Police be in any way involved in the case? And who is PC 178 Barham?

Do we know if any of the Tapas returned home between 5/5/2007 and 8/5/2007, and -perhaps- lived in the Hampshire region?
Maybe somebody holidaying in PdL on May 5th 2007 did get cold feet and wanted to point the UK police -any police in the UK- in a certain direction?
There are a PC Clive Barham and a Sgt Glen Barham in Hampshire Constabulary.

I also don't understand the home delivery, especially since Martin received it at 21.00 on 8th May. He passed the video camera to imaging unit at Hampshire Police Support headquarters, Netley for examination the next morning at 8.30 am. And only then commenced the examination of the cards/camera. So the two sealed bags were sitting at his home for 11 hours? Why?

So DC Martin studied at Liverpool University and in May 2007 was with the High Tech Crime Unit in Hampshire.

"High Tech Crime Unit
The High Tech Crime Unit (HTCU) provides a service to investigators on Area and specialist departments within Hampshire Constabulary.
The High Tech Crime Unit undertakes the forensic examination and retrieval of evidence or intelligence from computers, computer-related media and other digital devices

Following a restructure of the Scientific Services Department (SSD), HTCU now falls under the umbrella of SSD and will be managed by Detective Inspector Mark Gregory. It is intended that this change will bring the specialist skills and technologies of the HTCU within the management of the Scientific Services Department to ensure the organisation receives an effective service level for all investigations. The move will also ensure that there will be no duplication of effort within the force.
The unit is managed by a detective sergeant and comprises of four detective constables, as well as five police staff who are all forensic computer examiners. It also has an office manager and a dedicated IT support person.
Staff from the unit continue to offer training input on high-tech crime procedures for student officer courses, initial CID courses and for other departments within Hampshire Constabulary. This ensures that the constabulary continues to provide a robust and knowledgeable service to the residents of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight."

Hello Nereid, thank you!

Now, for all you Armchair Sherlocks out there, somewhere, have a go at this:

So, if I read this correctly, there are five police staff in the HTCU managed by detective Sergeant Martin. It seems likely that one of these staff would be either of the two PC Barhams. As the five staff are all, according to the description of the HTCU, forensic computer examiners, then it would appear odd that no initial examination of the video camera should have been performed by one or more of these skilled specialists. Now, let's assume such an examination did take place sometime between 5 May and 8 May 2007.

5 May was a Saturday. Presumably the camera was flown from PdL to the UK that day to speed things up (?) HTCU closed for the weekend.
6 May was a Sunday. HTCU closed for the weekend.
7 May was a Monday. HTCU open. Let's suppose the camera was taken there this day at its earliest. Commencement of examination (?)
8 May was a Tuesday. Examination in progress. Forensic computer analyst discovers something on it. Checks his/her findings with one or two colleagues (?) Decision is made to kick the bucket up the ladder, and so -after office hours!- PC 178 Barham is dispatched to the home of the manager of the HTCU, detective sergeant Martin, to report the analyst(s) initial findings and to hand over the camera for a second opinion on its contents, or for further processing up the ladder as DC Martin might see appropriate.

It must have been a ver urgent and pressing matter, for a PC to go to his managers private home at 21.00 hrs.

Given that urgency, now why would DS Martin close the envelop without doing something about the camera for 11 hrs?

And is that likely? Would he, briefed by PC 178 Barham as to the reason for his late visit, not have been tempted -Nay: obliged- to take a peek a/o investigate the videos himself? That would have been only human, wouldn't it? I mean, come on, your PC knocks on your door at night and hands over a special delivery. What would YOU do in his stead? Put is away till tomorrow? No. Thought not!

But all this raises yet another matter. Why the Hampshire Unit, whereas -till this very moment- have been no discernable links to any resident of Hampshire? Or HAS there been such a link to such a resident?

And what sort of information, or brief, or request for assistance since the camera left PdL on 5/5/07, could have spurred the HTCU into such immediate activity?

Who started the train of events from first sight of the camera in the hands of its owner/user in Pdl to the closing of the folder containing it in the care of DS Martin? Why did this initiator act as he did, with such urgency? What did he know was on that camera?

What was so important and so urgent about what was on that camera, and why the secrecy, even omitting the provenance of the camera, to the extent of disguising it behind -only- the name of PC 178: Barham?

by **PeterMac** 18.09.13 21:34

Praia da Luz - twinned with Southampton ?
The Algarve - twinned with Hampshire ?

Mmmmm. No.
Southampton - Twinned with

Le Havre, France
Rems-Murr-Kreis, Germany
Kalisz, Poland
Trieste, Italy
Hampton, Virginia, USA
Qingdao, China
Busan, South Korea
Nice ~~holidays~~ twin visits for councillors !

Can anyone tell us what TH is happening here ?

I was called out during the night on a number of occasions during my service.
I was a frogman (Underwater Search Unit in PC parlance, since you cannot say x -man) but that was only in the early hours ready for a dawn search.
CID, sometimes, for major enquiries, but only when I had just got home and was still likely to be awake - to set things up for the morning.
Sgt, Insp - Never so far as I can remember
C/I and then Supt.
Yes. That is what we had worked for.
24 hours responsibility, I
Duty Insp. gets stuck and rings for advice at 3am
Jump out of bed, full uniform (in case of press and also to encourage the troops and nip down to the station.

BUT
a DC, having stuff delivered to his HOME address at 9 pm ? ? ? ?
I am having great problems with this story.
He may be THE acknowledged police expert in this field across the whole of the UK.

Has anyone found the statements from the PJ officer who parcelled the camera up and sent it. ?
Or of the Command decision to do so ?
Or of the Enquiry team even knowing that the camera existed.
TM released some photos within the first couple of days - see mccannfiles

And then the camera was sent to Hampshire " ? ?

Why? By TM possibly ? Surely the PJ had taken it in hand.

by bobbin 18.09.13 21:36

Two thoughts come to my mind.
1 Why did the DC Martin write and sign his own testament, yet Portugal hold this material, so it was not clandestine and withheld from the Portuguese investigation. But why does he go to pains to say he did not inspect the contents until next day, when it would appear that 'other witnesses' would corroborate the fact that many pictures had been cleared.
2 If this were, by any chance, a video holding anything that could shine light on the plight of a little girl who had just disappeared, it would be a matter of IMMEDIATE URGENCY to inspect it instantly.
Her life could have been saved or the perpetrator caught if the video had contained any relevant information.
Potential witness identification, or sinister activity, would not be shelved as a 9 to 5 job, or put on the file to be looked at as soon as someone appropriate might come into the office.
It looks to be a very tailored explanation....did not look, so any lost photos weren't my doing gov....
Yet why is the report in the Portuguese files. There must have been communication from Portugal or else, if just handed in, it could have just 'got lost' somewhere.
Unless of course, it's all vague because this is the only bit made public by the PJ and as Goncalo Amaral says, things have been held back and he knows things that the McCs don't.
PeterMac, perhaps you can say if it is a common accepted practice for a DC to write and sign his own witness statement without consultation or verification from a.n. other.

by **Hobs** 18.09.13 21:39

PeterMac I'm sorry to have to break it to you honey, here goes anyway.

Are you sitting comfortably?

Good.

You couldn't be an x-man you probably wouldn't look good in tights and the flippers would probably clash anyway.

There, i said it big grin

by Nereid 18.09.13 23:07

Hello Nereid, thank you!

Now, for all you Armchair Sherlocks out there, somewhere, have a go at this:

So, if I read this correctly, there are five police staff in the HTCU managed by detective Sergeant Martin. It seems likely that one of these staff would be either of the two PC Barhams. As the five staff are all, according to the description of the HTCU, forensic computer examiners, then it would appear odd that no initial examination of the video camera should have been performed by one or more of these skilled specialists. Now, let's assume such an examination did take place sometime between 5 May and 8 May 2007.

5 May was a Saturday. Presumably the camera was flown from PdL to the UK that day to speed things up (?) HTCU closed for the weekend.
6 May was a Sunday. HTCU closed for the weekend.
7 May was a Monday. HTCU open. Let's suppose the camera was taken there this day at its earliest. Commencement of examination (?)
8 May was a Tuesday. Examination in progress. Forensic computer analyst discovers something on it. Checks his/her findings with one or two colleagues (?) Decision is made to kick the bucket up the ladder, and so -after office hours!- PC 178 Barham is dispatched to the home of the manager of the HTCU, detective sergeant Martin, to report the analyst(s) initial findings and to hand over the camera for a second opinion on its contents, or for further processing up the ladder as DC Martin might see appropriate.

It must have been a ver urgent and pressing matter, for a PC to go to his managers private home at 21.00 hrs.

Given that urgency, now why would DS Martin close the envelop without doing something about the camera for 11 hrs?

And is that likely? Would he, briefed by PC 178 Barham as to the reason for his late visit, not have been tempted -Nay: obliged- to take a peek a/o investigate the videos himself? That would have been only human, wouldn't it? I mean, come on, your PC knocks on your door at night and hands over a special delivery. What would YOU do in his stead? Put is away till tomorrow? No. Thought not!

But all this raises yet another matter. Why the Hampshire Unit, whereas -till this very moment- have been no discernable links to any resident of Hampshire? Or HAS there been such a link to such a resident?

And what sort of information, or brief, or request for assistance since the camera left PdL on 5/5/07, could have spurred the HTCU into such immediate activity?

Who started the train of events from first sight of the camera in the hands of its owner/user in Pdl to the closing of the folder containing it in the care of DS Martin? Why did this initiator act as he did, with such urgency? What did he know was on that camera?

What was so important and so urgent about what was on that camera, and why the secrecy, even omitting the provenance of the camera, to the extent of disguising it behind -only- the name of PC 178: Barham?

It's all very curious. And no sign of DC Martin anywhere on the internet.

Forgot to add the link for the High Tech Crime Unit: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Things might have changed since 2007.

PC Clive Barham is something to do with Community Safety: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
It probably wasn't him, because he would have been promoted by now? Then again I don't know how these things work.

More on Sgt. Glen Barham here (at the bottom): [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of course there may be more Barhams.

by Nereid 18.09.13 23:27

bobbin wrote:Two thoughts come to my mind.
1 Why did the DC Martin write and sign his own testament, yet Portugal hold this material, so it was not clandestine and withheld from the Portuguese investigation. But why does he go to pains to say he did not inspect the contents until next day, when it would appear that 'other witnesses' would corroborate the fact that many pictures had been cleared.
2 If this were, by any chance, a video holding anything that could shine light on the plight of a little girl who had just disappeared, it would be a matter of IMMEDIATE URGENCY to inspect it instantly.
Her life could have been saved or the perpetrator caught if the video had contained any relevant information.
Potential witness identification, or sinister activity, would not be shelved as a 9 to 5 job, or put on the file to be looked at as soon as someone appropriate might come into the office.
It looks to be a very tailored explanation....did not look, so any lost photos weren't my doing gov....
Yet why is the report in the Portuguese files. There must have been communication from Portugal or else, if just handed in, it could have just 'got lost' somewhere.
Unless of course, it's all vague because this is the only bit made public by the PJ and as Goncalo Amaral says, things have been held back and he knows things that the McCs don't.
PeterMac, perhaps you can say if it is a common accepted practice for a DC to write and sign his own witness statement without consultation or verification from a.n. other.

And DC Martin did not inspect the video, he passed it on to the imaging unit at Hampshire Police Support headquarters, still in a sealed bag, after sitting on it for 11 crucial hours!

The Imaging Unit is part of Scientific Services:

Scientific Services
The Scientific Services Department (SSD) provides specialist support across the force in respect of forensic examination and recovery, including the ever-increasing field of digital imagery.
SSD has responsibility for the provision of all forensic crime scene examination throughout the two counties. In support of this activity, it provides a wide range of specialist photographic, enhancement, analysis and examination techniques through the Fingerprint Bureau; Photographic, TV, Video and Audio Laboratory; Chemical Treatment Unit; Plan Drawing; CD fit capability; and a forensic trainer.
The management team consists of a detective superintendent, deputy Scientific Services manager and a mix of police officer and police staff managers and supervisors. There is currently a total of 154 staff employed within the department, 38 of which are police officers.
SSD is committed to providing the highest standards of forensic investigation into volume, serious and major crime. It has responsibility for the provision of all forensic crime scene examinations across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight *. It also provides a range of specialist forensic services via the Fingerprint Bureau, Forensic Resource Management Unit, Chemical Treatment Unit and the Imaging Unit. Access to external forensic science suppliers and experts is also available via SSD.
Click on the link for more information about the High Tech Crime Unit."

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

* They forgot to include Portugal big grin

No report on the video camera in the PJ files as far as I can see. Hope it's been held back by PJ if it exists.

by jeanmonroe 18.09.13 23:31

Hobs:
"As far as Kate and I are concerned there is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine is dead."

Gerry McCann in Lisbon
"the judiciary, having reviewed all of the evidence have said that there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there's no evidence to implicate us in her death....'

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

Clarence Mitchell: McCanns spokesman
"I believe Kate and Gerry are not responsible for Madeleines DEATH"
_______________________________________________________________________________

My question is:
As far as Gerry and Kate ARE concerned there is no evidence that Madeleine is dead

So why does he then say that there's no evidence to IMPLICATE Kate and himself in her DEATH?

His mantra, ad nauseum, is "there is no evidence she has been HARMED"

However he has said on camera that indeed, in his opinion, she IS dead, by saying 'her death'

Death IS pretty 'harmful' in my opinion.

What he is actually saying, imo, is that there is "no evidence" because 'we have done a good job at making sure there is none"
In other words "PROVE IT, SUCKERS!"

by jeanmonroe 18.09.13 23:36

Who sent the video camera and tape?

Maybe the same person that sent the Gerry 'F**k off i'm not here to enjoy myself ' airport video to youtube.

Always been a mystery that ONE.

We know DP 'took it' but was it HIS mobile it was taken on?

Maybe it was Kate's, FP or DW 'mobile' (but having DP take it because they wanted to get themselves IN the 'start of the holiday' video)

And was the 'airport bus video' even a filmed on a mobile?

Maybe...just maybe, the 'airport bus' video...........was filmed on a Sony Handicam Video camera!

ETA: And maybe, just maybe, could it have been uploaded to youtube by a one,

Stuart William Martin

Occupation: Detective Constable ****

Just a thought.

Didn't exactly show our hero Gerry in a good light, did it?

Swearing in front of 4 very small children.

WHY would any of the 'holiday makers' (DP especially) on the bus WANT to upload THAT video to youtube or anywhere else with Gerry swearing on it?

by Guest 19.09.13 8:03

jeanmonroe wrote:Who sent the video camera and tape?

Maybe the same person that sent the Gerry 'F**k off i'm not here to enjoy myself ' airport video to youtube.

Always been a mystery that ONE.

We know DP 'took it' but was it HIS mobile it was taken on?

Maybe it was Kate's, FP or DW 'mobile' (but having DP take it because they wanted to get themselves IN the 'start of the holiday' video)

And was the 'airport bus video' even a filmed on a mobile?

Maybe...just maybe, the 'airport bus' video...........was filmed on a Sony Handicam Video camera!

ETA: And maybe, just maybe, could it have been uploaded to youtube by a one,

Stuart William Martin

Occupation: Detective Constable ****

Just a thought.

Didn't exactly show our hero Gerry in a good light, did it?

Swearing in front of 4 very small children.

WHY would any of the 'holiday makers' (DP especially) on the bus WANT to upload THAT video to youtube or anywhere else with Gerry swearing on it?

Good morning!

Do we know when DP returned to the UK?

Funny, I thought along the same lines. After all, wasn't he the one that rang the Vice police in the middle of the night for a minute on May 3rd?
And then apparently thought better of it?

So the video might have been a covert signal about GM professing to go to work in the Algarve, after a pan of his three children in the bus.
It might -just might- be someone saying: Attention please: GMs 'work' had something to do with (his) child(ren)

But it also might not.

It would be very interesting to know who of the people we 'know' in this vast Maddie-file hails from Hampshire, and who had direct access at 21.00 hrs to a DS of the specialist HTCU in view of a disappearance of a mere child

by Guest 19.09.13 11:14

File notes - 9 May:
PDF Apenso Desc.
12 549 Analysis of CD delivered by GM
13 550 Analysis of CD delivered by M Wright
14 551 Image grouping index: (1)Apartments; (2)Ocean Club; (3)Beach
15 552 Blank page
16 553 Receipt of images dated 8 May
17 554 Receipt of images dated 8 May (same words; different signature)
18 555 Blank page

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

Where did GM and M Wright get the CD's from, Is it possible these two CD's came from Hampshire Police after DC Martin had removed any incriminating photos? It could have accounted for what seems to be an urgency to get the items examined so they could be given back to whoever brought them from Portugal, but who could that be?

Log in for more topics