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

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

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

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."

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]."
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
* They forgot to include Portugal  
 
 
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.

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!"

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?

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

Cherry Blossom wrote: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?

I don't think so. The CDs were in the hands of Paiva on 9th, and DC Martin was still examining the camera memory stocks on that date.
I interpret this as CDs prepared on a lap top in PdL by either Wright or Wolfall and then handed over.
Who, (and why) sent the camera itself to Hampshire I cannot imagine.

Who had the initials NALF in the PJ ?
The items have been given unique reference numbers with this prefix.
It is normal for officers to use their own initials, so who was it ?
And where is his statement ?

As a reminder from the topic 'video analysis of the tennis photo'
garyp on Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:21 pm

Have been doing an analysis of different photos for a while now, this is the first posting and video I have done on them so be gentle

The tennis court photo - I have read many things about photoshopping of this picture so thought I would look into it further.

It first appeared in the media unless anyone knows different on the morning of Monday 7th May.

This means it must have been in the hands of the editor Sunday 6th May for the layout to be arranged.

6th May was mothers day and the church service

Would Gerry have been emailing this picture to the editor that day? Possibly...

This photo was not used in PDL in the first days after M disappeared.

7th May was a busy day for this photo it was also used in the email 'chain letter' sent out by Pat Perkins family friend of Kates mother, where did she get it so quickly? And she doesnt really look like someone who would be able to cut the picture down from the original. Dont know maybe she uses photoshop in spare time.

Sent May 7th 2007. 12.29 PM

Subject: Madeleine, age 3, you can help find her for her Mummy and Daddy

On behalf of Kate and Gerry McCann and all the family, please help us find Madeleine.

Madeleine, age 3 was abducted from her bed in the family holiday apartment, P da L Algarve, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May.

Police and all of Portugal are trying to find her. The Portuguese people, holidaymakers and expats have been a great support to the family and continue their efforts.

You too can help. Please circulate this plea to publicise Madeleine’s photo and ask for information, no matter how small to be passed on to the authorities.

Whether you are in the UK, Portugal, Europe or beyond, please forward to all your family, friends, colleagues and business associates.

Someone out there will have some information that will lead to Maddy’s return.

The internet can be a powerful tool in finding Maddy, who is so loved and missed by us all.

Let’s use it positively.

Please pray for Madeleine and all the family at this devastating time.

We need your help. We know you won’t let Maddy down.

God bless.

Pat Perkins
(Family friend)

Pre Employment League

NHS Academy (Northwest)

The earliest I can find it in PDL is 12th May.

Same day as it appeared at the celtic game in full marketing guise.

I think this photo was used a a 'good marketing ploy' I dont think it was taken in PDL. But that doesnt address the photoshop issue.

Speculating on fuzzyness and blurring on pictures is not really accurate to decide if they have been manipulated because every time a jpg image is saved some of the quality is lost, some of the pictures of M have been saved hundreds of times. Really what we need is to compare something that wont change between two different photos, if they have been taken within a few days of each other then the person in them should be fundamentally the same.

Two of the photos that were allegedly taken in PDL that week can be compared really well because M is looking in the same direction. We have to re-orientate her body to match but the face gives us an accurate match in



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

There is a difference between our sizes between right and left but I think if she had an arm 2 inches shorter on the left side someone would have mentioned it!

What this means is that the odds of one or both photos being photosopped is a distinct possibility as the faces - teeth gap, nose etc - seem to match but the body doesnt?

Cherry Blossom wrote: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?

Cherry Blossom, Thank you for that info.

I don't know if I have this right because it seems incredible. GM and MW were given access to vital evidence, by that I mean the camera was not confiscated by the PJ and analysed by them. Either one, or both were -perhaps- responsible for getting the camera to the Hampshire Unit asap, and then more incredible, then were allowed to deliver the results back to Portugal.

So that means somebody within the McCann family/friends has a link with Hampshire and in particular DC Martin.
Now we need to find it. 

Who went back to the UK soon after 3rd May?

Hicks wrote:

Cherry Blossom wrote: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?

Cherry Blossom, Thank you for that info.

I don't know if I have this right because it seems incredible. GM and MW were given access to vital evidence, by that I mean the camera was not confiscated by the PJ and analysed by them. Either one, or both were -perhaps- responsible for getting the camera to the Hampshire Unit asap, and then more incredible, then were allowed to deliver the results back to Portugal.

So that means somebody within the McCann family/friends has a link with Hampshire and in particular DC Martin.
Now we need to find it. 

Who went back to the UK soon after 3rd May?

John McCann did.  Note the interviewer says "You're recently back from Portugal"  The interview is 9th May 2007, so he must have gone over and come back a day or 2 before.

When did CEOP get involved?

They started this campaign for holiday makers to upload their Praia da Luz photographs on 23 May 2007.

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

I don't think those photographs ever reached the PJ.

"Who went back to the UK soon after 3rd May?"

Jeremy Wilkins, film maker director, video editor, absolutely crucial witness to McCanns but 'invisible man' on two ' hand written timelines'
Susan Healy, KM's mother.

Nereid wrote:When did CEOP get involved?

They started this campaign for holiday makers to upload their Praia da Luz photographs on 23 May 2007.

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

I don't think those photographs ever reached the PJ                                           

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

Interesting! John McCann was the, 'clear thinker', responding to the, 'absolute panic'...and the... 'beating himself up over what had happened'.
Gerry obviously turned to his 'clear thinking' brother for help.

Items delivered 21.00, DC Martin could have worked through the night, don't know how long it would have taken him say a few hours, then handed the disc's to whoever then whoever got the plane back to Portugal.

Never been to Portugal, how long would it take to get there from UK?

Cherry Blossom wrote:Items delivered 21.00, DC Martin could have worked through the night, don't know how long it would have taken him say a few hours, then handed the disc's to whoever then whoever got the plane back to Portugal.

Never been to Portugal, how long would it take to get there from UK?

It is approximately 2 hours 30 minutes from the UK to Portugal.

Cherry Blossom wrote: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? 

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

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!

Martin states that he found

43 'live' pictures from 2 memory cards. He gives no indication to what these 43 live pictures refer to.

73 deleted photos that were no longer accessable to the camera user.

He downloads the 43 live pictures to SWM/3019/01 - SWM/3019/43

The deleted photos he then refers to as unallocated clusters and saves them to file format - therefore yes Cherry Blossom I think we can assume he has managed to recover them from the camera/memory card 'memory' .  He does not give any indication to what these 73 photos refer to neither does he give them a reference as per the live ones he has found.  So where are they?

We have 1 camera, 2 memory cards, 1 video camera.  He conducts an examination of the two memory cards but not of the video camera.

He tells us that the camera has not time/date set and that none of the pictures he finds have times or dates recorded on them.

SO: 
Whose camera is it?
Whose video camera is it?
Why does he not conduct an examination of the video camera?
Why does he not record whose camera and or videocam it is?
Why does he not record at least one description of a picture?
Are we to assume it was not Kates camera as she states on record that the last photo was taken at (2pmish) but was actually an hour earlier as her camera was set an hour early!! yet Martin tells us the camera had no time/date set???
He states that the files 01 - 043 are of the pictures from the two memory cards.  Why change a memory card unless it is full? 43 live photos are not a lot to take of a holiday and a memory card holds more than this!
Why has no one countersigned his statement?

We then have the analysis of the 2 CDs received on 8/05/07 from GM and Michael Wright by Inspector Ricardo Paiva.

Analysis of photos on CD received by GM shows several photos of interest where it is possible to see MBM.

Analysis of photos on CD received by MW shows photos of interest - those with MBM as well as other adults and children that made up the group of holiday makers.

Now why do GM and MW feel the need to deliver 2 separate CDs and why are these pictures put onto CDs, why not just hand over ALL the cameras and videocams from the whole group for analysis?  Unless there are pictures you do not want seen?? 

Also, Cherry Blossom did you look at the long list of black and white photo images on the same site?  Very difficult to make most of them out but I wonder whose camera they are from as most of them appear to be either DP, FP or DW with the children.  There are one or two of MBM and I wonder if these were actually taken by one of the Paynes?

Also added having just seen your new post - it takes approx. 2hours 20 mins to get to Portugal from UK with another possible 1.5 hours travel upon arrival to get from airport to PDL and the flights from the UK are usually very early in the morning.

Hicks wrote:

Cherry Blossom wrote:Items delivered 21.00, DC Martin could have worked through the night, don't know how long it would have taken him say a few hours, then handed the disc's to whoever then whoever got the plane back to Portugal.

Never been to Portugal, how long would it take to get there from UK?

It is approximately 2 hours 30 minutes from the UK to Portugal.

Thanks Hicks, so whoever would have had time for a slleep!

Hampshire an hour drive from JW, video editor, film maker, in London.

Hicks wrote:

Cherry Blossom wrote:Items delivered 21.00, DC Martin could have worked through the night, don't know how long it would have taken him say a few hours, then handed the disc's to whoever then whoever got the plane back to Portugal.

Never been to Portugal, how long would it take to get there from UK?

It is approximately 2 hours 30 minutes from the UK to Portugal.

It seems then that 'someone' handed the camera- in person?- to DC Stuart Martin at his home address, after 11 hours( no hurry them?) DC Martin took the 'sealed' camera to the Unit, surely the camera should have gone there directly?
Smacks of THAT 'someone' calling in a favour. 

Time to look at AstraZeneca in depth. I wonder if we would know some of the shareholders ?

windchime wrote:

Cherry Blossom wrote: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? 

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

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!

Martin states that he found

43 'live' pictures from 2 memory cards. He gives no indication to what these 43 live pictures refer to.

73 deleted photos that were no longer accessable to the camera user.

He downloads the 43 live pictures to SWM/3019/01 - SWM/3019/43

The deleted photos he then refers to as unallocated clusters and saves them to file format - therefore yes Cherry Blossom I think we can assume he has managed to recover them from the camera/memory card 'memory' .  He does not give any indication to what these 73 photos refer to neither does he give them a reference as per the live ones he has found.  So where are they?

We have 1 camera, 2 memory cards, 1 video camera.  He conducts an examination of the two memory cards but not of the video camera.

He tells us that the camera has not time/date set and that none of the pictures he finds have times or dates recorded on them.

SO: 
Whose camera is it?
Whose video camera is it?
Why does he not conduct an examination of the video camera?
Why does he not record whose camera and or videocam it is?
Why does he not record at least one description of a picture?
Are we to assume it was not Kates camera as she states on record that the last photo was taken at (2pmish) but was actually an hour earlier as her camera was set an hour early!! yet Martin tells us the camera had no time/date set???
He states that the files 01 - 043 are of the pictures from the two memory cards.  Why change a memory card unless it is full? 43 live photos are not a lot to take of a holiday and a memory card holds more than this!
Why has no one countersigned his statement?

We then have the analysis of the 2 CDs received on 8/05/07 from GM and Michael Wright by Inspector Ricardo Paiva.

Analysis of photos on CD received by GM shows several photos of interest where it is possible to see MBM.

Analysis of photos on CD received by MW shows photos of interest - those with MBM as well as other adults and children that made up the group of holiday makers.

Now why do GM and MW feel the need to deliver 2 separate CDs and why are these pictures put onto CDs, why not just hand over ALL the cameras and videocams from the whole group for analysis?  Unless there are pictures you do not want seen?? 

Also, Cherry Blossom did you look at the long list of black and white photo images on the same site?  Very difficult to make most of them out but I wonder whose camera they are from as most of them appear to be either DP, FP or DW with the children.  There are one or two of MBM and I wonder if these were actually taken by one of the Paynes?

Also added having just seen your new post - it takes approx. 2hours 20 mins to get to Portugal from UK with another possible 1.5 hours travel upon arrival to get from airport to PDL and the flights from the UK are usually very early in the morning.

 
Yes, I also think the Olympus belonged to the Paynes. Have a look at the following pics, one from the black and white holiday photographs. And one from the CCTV footage in Paraiso.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
It's either FP or MO that took that picture, as they're not in view in the B&W image. If you look at how FP is standing in the Paraiso CCTV pic, it could be that she is holding a camera.
 
Now, if the camera belonged to the McCanns, why would the Tapas 7 have it in their possession, when the McCanns were not invited to the beach trip? So yes, I think it belonged to the Paynes.

Totally agree with that Nereid.  I have not seen these pictures before and wonder why the Paynes pictures from their camera are on the records but there seems to be nothing from the McCanns camera -would that be because they were taken back to the UK for this so called analysis from Martin who seems to have omitted some highly relevant information regarding whose camera he was analysing and what the pictures showed him.

The Paynes seem to have taken an awful lot of holiday snaps that week including some that are of MBM and those used in the campaign to find her. If we are to assume that the order these photo show up that that was the order they were taken then it is clear that those of MBM were taken very early n in the holiday in fact most likely on the first day - why would that be??  Most of these photos show that the weather was chilly and wet as they are all showing them in long sleeved tops and trousers along with a few with the children wearing rain coats.  A little different wouldn't you say from the famous last pictures where they are all sunburnt and sweaty???