New photos of the McCanns

The video doesn't exist anymore.
And the text is not informative to none-Dutch speakers.
No offense, meant, of course :-)

i could see them nicely, there are around 6 or 7 video's about madeleine on the site of een vandaag, but most material is not accessible from outside the netherlands. i use quite a lot of their material in links on a website from my own, but always get the reaction from abroad, they could not watch any video, text is normally no problem. especially those from the archives.

there is a lot of english speaking in those video's, one is the complete version of find madeleine. if it is useful i can give it a try to make a transcription, the link from john(in)deed has as most interesting parts some statements of seija rutten and jennifer walker in it.

seija makes a confirmation of the existence of the colomboma, but the pictures in the video are not good enough quality to see it.

jennifer walker shows pictures of madeleine in a pumpkin suit on a halloween party at her house in amsterdam.

both stated that the mccann's were very good parents and they both believe their story to the full.

tigger wrote:For a start she's making parts of it up. The coloboma she probably got from Ivo van Woerden's article on 8/5 which featured the eye detail and the tennis photo facing left.  TV news also covered it.
I would think she was an acquaintance rather than a friend and like many others jumped on the bandwagon for a bit of fame.

It's not unlike Anna Stam who said she spoke to Maddie on the 6th of May and who (some six weeks later) reported it to the police with a carbon copy description of the type of abductor proposed by TM which had been in all the papers by then. I.e. creepy man an un-motherly woman.  
Come to think of it i know a couple who could be described as such.....



By the way the translation isn't good. 'They are very inspiring and strong parents' is the right phrase although 'aspiring' is perfectly true.  That sounds as if Pike had been round?

I'm wondering if such interviews were from a crib sheet, Pennington, Baker, ' friends' in the rogs are virtually interchangeable.

To explain this post on translation: i meant  that the Dutch translation is wrong, aspiring is virtually the same word in Dutch, one could say  'aspirerende'  but the subtitles say 'inspiring'
I've seen similar mistakes in the Dutch book promotion interviews, where Kate says 'It's a cross I have to bear.'
Translated it as 'a burden I have to etc,' whilst the 'cross' reveals far more about  Kate.

Seija cannot possibly have seen a coloboma that never existed. It had featured ion the 8th of May in the press. So mass hypnotism or mass suggestion. Adding a non existent feature to a memory of several years ago. Imo

i got the same impression, tigger, that seija is firmly influenced by pictures from the press articles.

she makes her statement sitting behind a laptop and it looks like their is some press article on the screen with pictures. later on you could see pictures of madeleine standing framed on a low chest in her living room, it is at least one picture, which i seen before taken as a still from a very short video. the one were madeleine is turning her head up with a very blank face.

this is what i can make of seija's statement, she does it in english, so no translation needed:

the pupil runs to in the iris and that is something she will always have and that wil never ever change and i think this is positively something that is complete unique to madeleine and she is instantly recognizable from her eyes.


i'am trying to reading the dutch translation of the book at the moment, but it looks like it that is not a true translation, but firmly processed. some years a go , i read a english version, from internet and from what i remember it is very different. but i can't find a full english version back at the moment to compare.

if anyone has a link to one, i would appreciate that very much.

the expression bearing of the cross or a cross, we know that in dutch in the very same manner, but some press likes to avoid such religious sentences. another reason, sometimes not the exact words are used, is plain simple copyright laws, so rewriting gives a new work. 

een kruis te dragen = a cross to bear and over here it is most used for a heavy burden and it is more often used, if the person who used this had a form of guilt or regret. spoken like a personal punishment. [size=12.727272033691406]but not the same as guilty by law, far more like guilty by feelings.[/size]
[size=12.727272033691406]if it is used to say something about others, like a family or somebody, most people would fit it to a heavy cross to bear. [/size]
it is a bit of an old fashion of expression to use nowadays.

onehand wrote:i could see them nicely, there are around 6 or 7 video's about madeleine on the site of een vandaag, but most material is not accessible from outside the netherlands. i use quite a lot of their material in links on a website from my own, but always get the reaction from abroad, they could not watch any video, text is normally no problem. especially those from the archives.

there is a lot of english speaking in those video's, one is the complete version of find madeleine. if it is useful i can give it a try to make a transcription, the link from john(in)deed has as most interesting parts some statements of seija rutten and jennifer walker in it.

seija makes a confirmation of the existence of the colomboma, but the pictures in the video are not good enough quality to see it.

jennifer walker shows pictures of madeleine in a pumpkin suit on a halloween party at her house in amsterdam.

both stated that the mccann's were very good parents and they both believe their story to the full.

What is told in here?
Well..  The parents seems to live in the Netherlands for SEVERAL years..??

Their friends.
It took 5 years ivf to get Madeleine.
At the time of 7 weeks pregnancy (she thinks) they went back to the U.K.??
Their friendship stayed.


So K&G had a NEED to present their family and friends in the beginning.
Also the ivf is a prove they are good parents..

Well..this knowlegde is not 'helping' to find her.
Or 'Abducter'

Most crime cases are solved on tiny details, so yes every statement of people who says they know the mccann’s or madeleine count for me. Not because what they say, but how it is said and in what setting. It is also part of getting a picture of who the mccann’s were. For us on the sidelines those are the only ones to fill that picture, for the police there is more to use.
 
As far as we could know  this case is still nothing more then: a missings person case with a strong suspension of a possible crime, not known in what compacity. 
For solving this case it would not be necessary that madeleine is physically found.
Details are very useful and it is quite common that these are become the result of knowings from the public.
 
It is possible that on this moment of time, the statement several or some years in amsterdam could have come from specially this friend seija. Or the presentator could have meant to say some time and make a mistake and said some years.
It is from 11 days after madeleine is missing, not a lot of details were already cleared.
Not helping, do you know how much people takes their holidays early, lots of them going south to france, spain and portugal, so quite useful to see a picture of madeleine. I was from the 5^th in france and spain, i did follow some of the news in french papers and some news items on tv. Once i found the telegraaf some days old, but keeping a face alive in the public was in that stage of this case useful.
Not for me, i was already infected with: look at the parents. Even given it a fair chance i had it wrong, i never had any doubts and still are looking at the parents.
 
For the ones who are able to see the video from eenvandaag, look to the body language of seija rutten, speaking about the mccann's as parents and when she use the sentence:”completely doted on her”, she tells you a positive thing, but her head shakes no, no and no again, she can’t stop it.
 
When seija tells us about madeleine, again when she speaks out: strong willed, witty, again she try to bring it as a positive thing by voice, but her head shakes a no.
 
But is seija a friend or is she just somebody who’s life and daily doings cross paths with the mccann’s, in the netherlands we mostly would not name those people friends, but acquaintances, not friend.
Friends are mostly people who are really in your inner circles and would known far more details from you. Sometimes equal to family or even more.
 
If this seija thinks, the mccann’s left when kate was 7 or 8 weeks pregnant of the twins, she could hardly be more then a acquaintance. Not the person you would trust to an opinion about parenting skills, i think. She doesn't count up as a person from the inner circle of the mccann’s. Lot’s of parents are quite capable to act for a few hours or even a day as the perfect role model, but it won’t tell you anything about what happened behind their front door.
 
Also the internet gives the opportunity to look up some things about people and in my opinion seija is a person that is not standing out as a realistic or a person with her foot firmly to the ground.
 
But quite usable for building the nice picture of the happy mccann family.
A lot of people only see neat people in nice houses speaking nicely comments on the mccann family, quite useful to build that picture the mccann’s want us to believe.
 
So from their view it steers people a bit further to believe in an abduction by a stranger, not helpful to find madeleine, but they had to tackle the neglect parents idea at that time. So the nice ‘friends’ are welcome.

onehand wrote:Most crime cases are solved on tiny details, so yes every statement of people who says they know the mccann’s or madeleine count for me. Not because what they say, but how it is said and in what setting. It is also part of getting a picture of who the mccann’s were. For us on the sidelines those are the only ones to fill that picture, for the police there is more to use.
 
As far as we could know  this case is still nothing more then: a missings person case with a strong suspension of a possible crime, not known in what compacity. 
For solving this case it would not be necessary that madeleine is physically found.
Details are very useful and it is quite common that these are become the result of knowings from the public.
 
It is possible that on this moment of time, the statement several or some years in amsterdam could have come from specially this friend seija. Or the presentator could have meant to say some time and make a mistake and said some years.
It is from 11 days after madeleine is missing, not a lot of details were already cleared.
Not helping, do you know how much people takes their holidays early, lots of them going south to france, spain and portugal, so quite useful to see a picture of madeleine. I was from the 5^th in france and spain, i did follow some of the news in french papers and some news items on tv. Once i found the telegraaf some days old, but keeping a face alive in the public was in that stage of this case useful.
Not for me, i was already infected with: look at the parents. Even given it a fair chance i had it wrong, i never had any doubts and still are looking at the parents.
 
For the ones who are able to see the video from eenvandaag, look to the body language of seija rutten, speaking about the mccann's as parents and when she use the sentence:”completely doted on her”, she tells you a positive thing, but her head shakes no, no and no again, she can’t stop it.
 
When seija tells us about madeleine, again when she speaks out: strong willed, witty, again she try to bring it as a positive thing by voice, but her head shakes a no.
 
But is seija a friend or is she just somebody who’s life and daily doings cross paths with the mccann’s, in the netherlands we mostly would not name those people friends, but acquaintances, not friend.
Friends are mostly people who are really in your inner circles and would known far more details from you. Sometimes equal to family or even more.
 
If this seija thinks, the mccann’s left when kate was 7 or 8 weeks pregnant of the twins, she could hardly be more then a acquaintance. Not the person you would trust to an opinion about parenting skills, i think. She doesn't count up as a person from the inner circle of the mccann’s. Lot’s of parents are quite capable to act for a few hours or even a day as the perfect role model, but it won’t tell you anything about what happened behind their front door.
 
Also the internet gives the opportunity to look up some things about people and in my opinion seija is a person that is not standing out as a realistic or a person with her foot firmly to the ground.
 
But quite usable for building the nice picture of the happy mccann family.
A lot of people only see neat people in nice houses speaking nicely comments on the mccann family, quite useful to build that picture the mccann’s want us to believe.
 
So from their view it steers people a bit further to believe in an abduction by a stranger, not helpful to find madeleine, but they had to tackle the neglect parents idea at that time. So the nice ‘friends’ are welcome.

Well the early 'news' is very interesting.
The family and friends all standing up in the media.
The church,  in Portugal very importend.

I mean.. several years was odd.
Do Madeleine was born in the Netherlands.
Or they didn't do their homework well.
So why mention it?
Also the ivf..

It's was not gonna help to find her sooner.
Only to see her as 'our' Maddie.

She was probaly a small even tiny child.
Didn't even start school.
Had already a bff.
Not strong or smart enough to leave the apartment.
'Very special'


[size=12.727272033691406]A milion pictures of K&G and Maddie and even the twin.[/size]
[size=12.727272033691406]And some are a bit weird.[/size]
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id17.html
The last picture eating ice,scroll down. she has no vingernails in the left hand.
I searched for a picture with left vingernails.
Mabye.. its me..'Looking' to long
But there is something odd with many photo's.



Kate probaly look only 7 weeks pregnant when she left Amsterdam.



And even so..The Mccann had a hard job,for the last 7 years getting harder, many friends, family and even several ours to sport on a daily basis.
So I find it surprising they manage to make so many qualitytime pictures.

[size=12.727272033691406]They probaly are to busy to sleep, don't need it.[/size]
[size=12.727272033691406]It's seems beyond humanity to manage all that.[/size]

Châtelaine wrote:The video doesn't exist anymore.
And the text is not informative to none-Dutch speakers.
No offense, meant, of course :-)

The video works for me. There are quite a few pieces in English. A lot of nonsense too.

Morning all

Probably been asked before, so perhaps someone could advise...

There is much speculation about when an 'incident' could have occurred. Some members (much respected) on here suggest earlier in the holiday. I am aware that the PJ asked for any photos from the resort to be handed in at the time, but from what I have seen then quality is poor, so I'm no further forward really.

The PJ suspended the investigation believing an accident happened on the night of the 3rd. Why not sooner ? The crèche records seem quite unconvincing. Are there any validated non-T9 photos of MBM taken on the holiday, or does anyone know of anything verifiable prior to the 3rd ?

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Morning all

Probably been asked before, so perhaps someone could advise...

There is much speculation about when an 'incident' could have occurred. Some members (much respected) on here suggest earlier in the holiday. I am aware that the PJ asked for any photos from the resort to be handed in at the time, but from what I have seen then quality is poor, so I'm no further forward really.

The PJ suspended the investigation believing an accident happened on the night of the 3rd. Why not sooner ? The crèche records seem quite unconvincing. Are there any validated non-T9 photos of MBM taken on the holiday, or does anyone know of anything verifiable prior to the 3rd ?

A very good question, and one worth examining in detail. I simply offer this list of the seven photographs of Madeleine taken that week (or claimed to have been taken in one case) for further discussion:

A LIST OF THE SEVEN PHOTOS

1.     Madeleine playing on the grounds of the Ocean Club with Gerry McCann. Taken on Saturday?

2.     Two photos of Madeleine playing at a Wendy House at the Ocean Club – Photo A: Taken on Saturday or Sunday?

3.     Two photos of Madeleine playing at a Wendy House at the Ocean Club – Photo B: Taken on Saturday or Sunday?

4.     Madeleine and Lilly - This image is cropped - may have been taken on the Paynes' camera, possibly also on Saturday or Sunday

5.     Madeleine on the tennis court: ‘The tennis balls photo’: Claimed to have been taken on Tuesday, but there are many questions about the precise origins of this photo, not least, who actually took it, and on which camera 

6.     ‘The Last Photo’: Gerry McCann, Amelie and Madeleine sitting by the poolside, said to have been taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May. Evidence assembled painstakingly by PeterMac suggests that this photo was more likely taken on Sunday or Monday, with the date/time stamp altered: claims that it was 'photoshopped' in any other way seem unlikley. It was not published until 24 May and only after Gerry McCann had returned to England - and Gerry's sister Philomena McCann, wife of  photoshopper and quicksand fetishist Tony Rickwood, had flown in to Faro two days earlier 

7. Photograph by Philip Edmonds, Director of international steel company Stemcor, who says he took a photo of Madeleine on Thursday (3 May) with Madeleine 'in the background'. This photograph, which could verify that Madeleine was alive on 3 May, has never been published.

Tony Bennett wrote:
6.     ‘The Last Photo’: Gerry McCann, Amelie and Madeleine sitting by the poolside, said to have been taken at 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May. Evidence assembled painstakingly by PeterMac suggestes that this photo was more likely taken on Sunday or Monday, with the date/time stamp altered: claims that it was 'photoshopped' in any other way seem unlikley. It was not published until 24 May and only after Gerry McCann had returned to England - and Gerry's sister Philomena McCann, wife of photoshopper and quicksand fetishist Tony Rickwood, had flown in to Faro two days earlier 

It should also be remembered that the person who accompanied Gerry back to Portugal on 22nd after his two day trip was Mitchell.
That photo was released to the world's press on 24th, so must have been placed in the hands of the agency on 23rd.
And when it was released there was the accompanying stitherum about the time being out by an hour - as if anyone would care.
But that is classic "look over here".
In other words, focus attention on the time, which isn't very important, so that you see the date, which IS.

Tony Bennett wrote:
7. Photograph by Philip Edmonds, Director of international steel company Stemcor, who says he took a photo of Madeleine on Thursday (3 May) with Madeleine 'in the background'. This photograph, which could verify that Madeleine was alive on 3 May, has never been published.

Unless and until this photo sees the light of day I am going to work on the basis that it doesn't exist.

.....and even if it does exist, my guess is that there is a child in the background who could be any of the various little girls who was there then.

P.S. Mr Edmonds supposedly did not know the McCanns. How could he be sure that the child in the background of his photo was Madeleine? Thanks to the wildly differing images of her which were subsequently issued, nobody could state with certainty that they'd seen her.

And of course the EXIF metadata would have to be beyond reproach !

Just a thought,
Suppose there IS a photo, taken on 3rd at the time he says, in which he thought Madeleine was in the background, but careful examination by the PJ and Sy have shown that it was not, just another random little girl with mousy hair standing next to her own caring parent.
Then - that photo might well show that the weather was farily rotten, (just like the other photos we have taken on 3rd,) and NOT sunny and dry and warm and flat calm, as the Last Photo avers.
So that photo would be yet more proof, if any more were needed, that the Last Photo is false.

Is this the reason we have not been shown it ?
PJ and Sy keeping their powder dry ?
TM terminally trapped by a botched Mitchell attempt to "control what comes out in the media", and then by Kate's autobiography ?

PeterMac wrote:
Just a thought,
Suppose there IS a photo, taken on 3rd at the time he says, in which he thought Madeleine was in the background, but careful examination by the PJ and Sy have shown that it was not, just another random little girl with mousy hair standing next to her own caring parent.

Probably Nigel's daughter....

Tony, thank you. Items 1 to 3 of your list are taken as vaild, the rest seem questionable. 

I have seen CCTV from the Tapas, so presumably CCTV exists elsewhere such as main reception, main access points, in vicinity of the crèches etc ? If so, has this been looked at ? This footage would be as relevant as any photos from any source that the PJ requested at that time.

Can any member demonstrate that MBM was around after the 29th ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5-UkgsWGic&list=PLDCF22535653D5158

John (In)DEED wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5-UkgsWGic&list=PLDCF22535653D5158

***
Why do you post here a - what I think at the time honest - view of O'Connor, given NINE days after the disappearance? And such without a comment or explanation of yourselves?

Châtelaine wrote:

John (In)DEED wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5-UkgsWGic&list=PLDCF22535653D5158

***
Why do you post here a - what I think at the time honest - view of O'Connor, given NINE days after the disappearance? And such without a comment or explanation of yourselves?

Châtelaine, say hello to marconi/bellum. A fine extractor of urine.

I promised myself not to react to this kind of things ever more, but it got once again the better of me ...

Châtelaine wrote:I promised myself not to react to this kind of things ever more, but it got once again the better of me ...

me too. I sat on it but couldn't sit and say nothing.

aquila wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:

John (In)DEED wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5-UkgsWGic&list=PLDCF22535653D5158

***
Why do you post here a - what I think at the time honest - view of O'Connor, given NINE days after the disappearance? And such without a comment or explanation of yourselves?

Châtelaine, say hello to marconi/bellum. A fine extractor of urine.

Well..
If I am doing something wrong, you can tell me.
This is insulting.

This link was in the early days.
In the early days it was Mccann clan all over.. like they were eyewitness.
To put a statement out what really happened.


So this was a different kind of view.
The traces went to the Baptista.
But they were there before..so didnT mean she was there on that night.

But you know.. If you don't like what I have to say..
O.K then.
I am not here to kissing or kicking asses.

I thought I was rather clear about what IMO was wrong with your post.
Perhaps I should try and be even more clear:

* you post a link with an irrelevant 12 May 2007 interview with O'Connor in a Topic on New McCann photos;
* you post this link without any comment or explanation as to why you do so;
* you post just a link, not the youtube video itself, thus forcing members to click on a link of which they cannot be sure, where's it's going to lead to;
* you suggest now that you did link to the 12 May 2007 interview, because it gives a different kind of view - which it does, suggesting a WAW instead of an intruder;
* BUT, as you very well know - I cannot imagine you would have missed that - O'Connor's IMO honest and intelligent analysis was made, WAY before the multitude of lies and inconsistencies became apparent, WAY before the dogs were sent in and WAY before the PJfiles were released.

And you wonder, WHY I ask you a question?

ETA regarding your last line: I know of very, very few people, who are here to either kick or kiss buttocks ...

Châtelaine wrote:I thought I was rather clear about what IMO was wrong with your post.
Perhaps I should try and be even more clear:

* you post a link with an irrelevant 12 May 2007 interview with O'Connor in a Topic on New McCann photos;
* you post this link without any comment or explanation as to why you do so;
* you post just a link, not the youtube video itself, thus forcing members to click on a link of which they cannot be sure, where's it's going to lead to;
* you suggest now that you did link to the 12 May 2007 interview, because it gives a different kind of view - which it does, suggesting a WAW instead of an intruder;
* BUT, as you very well know - I cannot imagine you would have missed that - O'Connor's IMO honest and intelligent analysis was made, WAY before the multitude of lies and inconsistencies became apparent, WAY before the dogs were sent in and WAY before the PJfiles were released.

And you wonder, WHY I ask you a question?

Châtelaine, it's time for Admin to kick this idiot out. Don't waste your breath.

@Admin. Please do something about this. Most people know this is marconi/bellum in another guise. Even if it's not it's obvious this is an idiot causing disruption.

Please sort it out.

As playing the troll card does little to enhance the reputation of this forum or encourage others to join, do you not think that your concern would be more appropriately conveyed to Admin by pm, aquila?