Recap on the Tennis Balls photo

juliet wrote:It is surely important that not one of the McCann holiday photos proves that Madeleine was ever alive and well in PdL. Perhaps the Edmonds photo says otherwise? Every photo is possibly fake, beginning with the video of the little girl falling up the steps of the plane who has significantly longer pink trousers than the little girl in the airport minibus. It has to be relevant that we are told so many lies.

I'm not convinced this is Madeleine.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

We're told Jane Tanner's child was the same age as Madeleine, and a photo of her child showing her head shows that she's blonde like Madeleine.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Is it possible the little girl we've been told is Madeleine is, in fact, Jane Tanner's daughter?

Pretty much anything is possible in this case! Thanks very much for all the helpful responses about the Wendy house photo. No doubt it has been covered before, but given that this case has still not been solved, then it is still of interest to sift through the 'evidence' as it were (and it will probably be interesting to sift through, even after the case is solved - if that ever happens of course!)

I *thought* the bald man at the Wendy House might be Raj Balu. I am just wondering why he was included in this photo (there is always a reason with the McCAnns). From what I understand he is a barrister who was holidaying at the resort (or apartments nearby?) and, on the evening that Madeleine 'disappeared' went to the Tapas restaurant to pick up a takeaway with his friend Neil Berry as the two families were going to eat in on the Berry's verandah that evening.

So does this mean he is the barrister who the two sisters (sorry haven't got time to find all links/names etc) had a drink with the following evening (and maybe socialized with at other times). The sisters - who were in Gerry's tennis group - testimony was quite interesting as they ate at the Tapas bar, saw the McCann group and then headed off for a night-cap. One returned on hearing a commotion to help search and seemed to indicate she bumped into Jez Wilkins that evening while searching. While he suggests he did not search til the morning.

I am pretty sure that I read somewhere that Raj Balu (and the sisters I think) were suspicious about the behaviour and actions of one/two blonde haired men during the day/evening of 3rd May.

I read quite a long description of all this, but don't have the time to find the link. However, I got the impression that one of the suspicious-looking blonde men might be Gerry McCann's surfing buddy. In one of Jez Wilkins' police witness statments, Jez reports a blonde 'rasta-type' man (later identified by police as a fellow guest and Gerry's surfing buddy) as acting suspiciously in the toilet near the Tapas restaurant on the evening of 3rd May. 

What I am getting at (eventually!!) is that there appear to be quite a few people who saw suspicious blonde looking men (or at least a man).  Plus I do think Raj and maybe Berry too gave quite lengthy accounts about a laundry man and van and a strange kind of garage room which they noticed with children's toys in it, right near their apartments. 

Jez Wilkins, Raj Balu, the Sisters, Mrs Fenns' niece - all spotted suspicious looking men in and around the resort at crucial times. At least one of these sightings has been identified as Gerry's surfing buddy. 

I wanted to corroborate Jez' sighting with Raj Balu's (and maybe Neil Berry's) but am unable to find their early eye-witness accounts. Can only find their accounts from 28/05/08 which do not appear to add much extra. 

Is it possible that Raj saw something incriminating and that Gerry and the McBrigade have him flagged up? Other potentially useful witnesses seem to be 'whoosed' away from the scene, or at least their accounts minimized and trivialized.

Just more confusion, perhaps. My head hurts too!

canada12 wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:The biggest red flag of the last photo for me, and something I only found out the other day, is that the picture isn't in the PJ files.

Exactly. Which means they've either held it back from release, or they've discarded it as being irrelevant to the investigation.

The Last Photo was not released by the McCanns until 23rd May, and was published by the world's press on 24th May
Gerry returned to PdL from England on 22nd May - in the company of Mitchell
The Last Photo was taken on a Canon Powershot
The camera examined by the Detective in Hampshire was an Olympus.
and so on
It is unlikely that the PJ ever had "possession" of the Last Photo or of the camera which contained it.
In fact Kate helpfully tells us in Exhibit KH 1 that she had the camera with her on 10th, when the Olympus was in Hampshire.
Dr Amaral noticed the Canon on the dining table when they went through the PJ photos on 7th or 8th and realised they had not been given it.

All good questions and thoughts, j.rob - and admittedly I don't know the answers at all.

One thought, however. PDL is a small place, and if you think about people holidaying there, a population of tourists will be present for a finite period of time, after which they'll be replaced by a new population of tourists, who will again be present for a finite period of time. It's logical that during the week that the McCanns were there, the same tourists would be spotted by a number of different people, simply because they were there that week and either staying in the complex or nearby. "Suspicious" activity is in the eye of the beholder. I tend to think that if Gerry enlisted the help of anyone outside the Tapas 7 it would be people he was familiar with previously (a relationship we don't know about) or someone he'd been referred to (by someone we don't know about).

PeterMac wrote:

canada12 wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:The biggest red flag of the last photo for me, and something I only found out the other day, is that the picture isn't in the PJ files.

Exactly. Which means they've either held it back from release, or they've discarded it as being irrelevant to the investigation.

The Last Photo was not released by the McCanns until 23rd May, and was published by the world's press on 24th May
Gerry returned to PdL from England on 22nd May - in the company of Mitchell
The Last Photo was taken on a Canon Powershot
The camera examined by the Detective in Hampshire was an Olympus.
and so on
It is unlikely that the PJ ever had "possession" of the Last Photo or of the camera which contained it.
In fact Kate helpfully tells us in Exhibit KH 1 that she had the camera with her on 10th, when the Olympus was in Hampshire.
Dr Amaral noticed the Canon on the dining table when they went through the PJ photos on 7th or 8th and realised they had not been given it.

I wasn't aware of all the implications of this when you first mentioned them, PM. But now I see it. The PJ photos in the files are only the photos which they were able to access from the Olympus. The PJ were never given the Canon - which to me is another red flag - why wouldn't Kate or Gerry give the Canon to the PJ if it had helpful photos on it? The conclusion to me is, that they either didn't want the police to have the camera, because of what was on it (or not on it), AND / OR, they needed the camera in order to produce "the last photo", which, on the night Madeleine disappeared, they'd already planned to create and release (allegedly) 3 weeks later.

And so, in fact, "the last photo" may be of great interest to the PJ now. I'm hoping this is the case - and that they've been able to come to some good conclusions regarding the alleged date and time provided by the McCanns.

Canada12, I have often wondered about the child being rather unpleasantly squeezed by Payne in the greyscale photos. People airily say it's the Tanner child...but is it?

All this tickly, squeezy chasey stuff and make me squirm and giggle and hyper, leaves me feeling repulsed to be honest.

Nina wrote:All this tickly, squeezy chasey stuff and make me squirm and giggle and hyper, leaves me feeling repulsed to be honest.

Me too. :bad:

juliet wrote:Canada12, I have often wondered about the child being rather unpleasantly squeezed by Payne in the greyscale photos. People airily say it's the Tanner child...but is it?

The pictures here?

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

I wonder if the PJ identified the children based on what they were told, or if they did a physical check to ensure the children fit the names they were identified by...?

aquila wrote:

Nina wrote:All this tickly, squeezy chasey stuff and make me squirm and giggle and hyper, leaves me feeling repulsed to be honest.

Me too. :bad:

He does seem to be enjoying the fact that the older girl's t-shirt is pulled up and he's feeling bare skin... how did it get that way? Is she squirming and the top was raised by that and the photo was snapped at that moment? Or..?
Sorry if this is too graphic but I'm just reporting what I see in the photo.

Thank you very much Canada12. Those pictures are horrible - the child is not happy to be held in that way. Why would Tanner allow it if it is her child?

I find the fifth one down very disturbing .

You can just see through the bottle on the table in front of Payne. Look where his hand is. imo the girl on his lap is trying to move his hands away.

That man creeps me out.

I wish we were able to see the ones here better:

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

We might learn a lot from seeing the children's relative sizes and general descriptions even if their faces are obscured a little.

And whoever took the picture thought the way he was clutching at this girl, grasping her so she couldn't get away ( see the veins on his hands) was ok.

canada12 wrote:. . .
I wasn't aware of all the implications of this when you first mentioned them, PM. But now I see it. The PJ photos in the files are only the photos which they were able to access from the Olympus. The PJ were never given the Canon - which to me is another red flag - why wouldn't Kate or Gerry give the Canon to the PJ if it had helpful photos on it? The conclusion to me is, that they either didn't want the police to have the camera, because of what was on it (or not on it), AND / OR, they needed the camera in order to produce "the last photo", which, on the night Madeleine disappeared, they'd already planned to create and release (allegedly) 3 weeks later.

And so, in fact, "the last photo" may be of great interest to the PJ now. I'm hoping this is the case - and that they've been able to come to some good conclusions regarding the alleged date and time provided by the McCanns.

The PJ and Grange have had the full breakdown of the Last Photo for a long time.
Quite apart from the shennanigns with the camera and the alteration of the EXIF metadata, and Mitchell's lies and so on, there is the very simple fact that at lunchtime on 3/5/7 it was not hot and sunny. There are hundreds of photos in the public domain, all timed and dated, showing what the Tapas 7 helpfully described in their statements, (cloudy / dull, and only beginning to improve later)  AND there is the Met office data which proves this beyond a reasonable doubt. Not to mention the ex-pat with the professional interest who lives IN PdL and who keeps a meticulous diary of the weather, and as done for years - - -
so a person sitting in a T shirt with his feet in the pool would have been freezing cold, not hot and sweaty.
The photo can only have been taken around lunchtime on the Sunday 30th April.  When the weather was as described and as shown.

But of course it is the vital and only piece of evidence, apart from their vague statements about tea and carrying comatose children round the place, that Madeleine was still alive and well.
And now we know know that obviously she wasn't.

Remember that the T7 were banished to the Paraiso that day, and even Kate was told to b**** off on a run.

PeterMac wrote:and even Kate was told to b**** off on a run.

By Gerry you mean?

IMO he was "instrumental" to "things" ... and IMO still is ...
Mods remove if it suits you.

PeterMac, We know the Tapas 7 were at the Paraiso that tea time because of the CCTV. We don't know where Kate was - only what they and she say about her jogging past. She could have been anywhere.

With regard to the right arm in the tennis photo and the sudden change of colour at the wrist.

I saw something on TV recently where actors with tattoos on their arms can use a form of arm tights but is particularly invisible/realistic (HQ close up video and beyond we have today) whilst totally covering the tattoos. Clearly this could be applied to other things, e.g. medical purposes; something which has cropped up a lot in relation to Madeleine, in various forms. Don't know anything else about it, more an observation/discussion point. Perhaps someone knows more?

PeterMac wrote:

canada12 wrote:. . .
I wasn't aware of all the implications of this when you first mentioned them, PM. But now I see it. The PJ photos in the files are only the photos which they were able to access from the Olympus. The PJ were never given the Canon - which to me is another red flag - why wouldn't Kate or Gerry give the Canon to the PJ if it had helpful photos on it? The conclusion to me is, that they either didn't want the police to have the camera, because of what was on it (or not on it), AND / OR, they needed the camera in order to produce "the last photo", which, on the night Madeleine disappeared, they'd already planned to create and release (allegedly) 3 weeks later.

And so, in fact, "the last photo" may be of great interest to the PJ now. I'm hoping this is the case - and that they've been able to come to some good conclusions regarding the alleged date and time provided by the McCanns.

The PJ and Grange have had the full breakdown of the Last Photo for a long time.
Quite apart from the shennanigns with the camera and the alteration of the EXIF metadata, and Mitchell's lies and so on, there is the very simple fact that at lunchtime on 3/5/7 it was not hot and sunny. There are hundreds of photos in the public domain, all timed and dated, showing what the Tapas 7 helpfully described in their statements, (cloudy / dull, and only beginning to improve later)  AND there is the Met office data which proves this beyond a reasonable doubt. Not to mention the ex-pat with the professional interest who lives IN PdL and who keeps a meticulous diary of the weather, and as done for years - - -
so a person sitting in a T shirt with his feet in the pool would have been freezing cold, not hot and sweaty.
The photo can only have been taken around lunchtime on the Sunday 30th April.  When the weather was as described and as shown.

But of course it is the vital and only piece of evidence, apart from their vague statements about tea and carrying comatose children round the place, that Madeleine was still alive and well.
And now we know know that obviously she wasn't.

Remember that the T7 were banished to the Paraiso that day, and even Kate was told to b**** off on a run.

You may say it was not hot and sunny but DCI Redwood does not agree and he is the investigating officer.

 He states Madeleine was alive by the pool on Thursday 3 May and it was hot and sunny. So in your opinion, why is he ignoring an easily proven fact?  It should also be noted the PJ's findings is that M died in apartment 5a on Thursday 3rd May.

Do you seriously think either police force  would ever admit after seven years we never even had the right day?
There is a fuller explanation in my previous post       Truth does not come into it.

RIPM wrote:You may say it was not hot and sunny but DCI Redwood does not agree and he is the investigating officer.

 He states Madeleine was alive by the pool on Thursday 3 May and it was hot and sunny. So in your opinion, why is he ignoring an easily proven fact?  It should also be noted the PJ's findings is that M died in apartment 5a on Thursday 3rd May.

Do you seriously think either police force  would ever admit after seven years we never even had the right day?
There is a fuller explanation in my previous post       Truth does not come into it.

I don't understand where SY's investigation stands legally, but the last photo isn't part of the original PJ investigation (not in the released files at least),  So can't SY say anything they like or even 'go along with' what the parents claim even if they really don't believe it?

I imagine if the photo was now known by the PJ/SY to have been taken a previous day it would be something they'd keep close to their chests?

I'm definitely going to look for other photos around Luz on May 3rd 2007 though.

I think we need to remember that the current PJ investigation picks up where the former PJ investigation left off. And that the former PJ investigation was incomplete, and conclusions were reached based on the information they were allowed access to at the time, and according to information they'd collated at the time.

I think between then and now, much has changed. Forensics have improved. Information which may have been withheld previously may have now been shared. Conclusions which were reached previously may now have been rethought, because of new information which may have come to light.

I don't think we actually know what the PJ have concluded and are continuing to conclude, based on the new investigation. I don't think we can state that because Mr Amaral believed Madeleine was alive on May 3, that is necessarily what the PJ now believe.

I also think that whatever Andy Redwood has said on tv and in the press may not necessarily be what SY actually believes and is investigating.

Therefore I tend to think that both police forces are very aware of what The Last Photo is, and what it isn't. And that they're not likely to be forthcoming with this information, in the interests of maintaining the security of the investigation.

RIPM ''
 He states Madeleine was alive by the pool on Thursday 3 May and it was hot and sunny. So in your opinion, why is he ignoring an easily proven fact''


Where is the quote from Redwood about the weather from ,please?

RIPM wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

canada12 wrote:. . .
I wasn't aware of all the implications of this when you first mentioned them, PM. But now I see it. The PJ photos in the files are only the photos which they were able to access from the Olympus. The PJ were never given the Canon - which to me is another red flag - why wouldn't Kate or Gerry give the Canon to the PJ if it had helpful photos on it? The conclusion to me is, that they either didn't want the police to have the camera, because of what was on it (or not on it), AND / OR, they needed the camera in order to produce "the last photo", which, on the night Madeleine disappeared, they'd already planned to create and release (allegedly) 3 weeks later.

And so, in fact, "the last photo" may be of great interest to the PJ now. I'm hoping this is the case - and that they've been able to come to some good conclusions regarding the alleged date and time provided by the McCanns.

The PJ and Grange have had the full breakdown of the Last Photo for a long time.
Quite apart from the shennanigns with the camera and the alteration of the EXIF metadata, and Mitchell's lies and so on, there is the very simple fact that at lunchtime on 3/5/7 it was not hot and sunny. There are hundreds of photos in the public domain, all timed and dated, showing what the Tapas 7 helpfully described in their statements, (cloudy / dull, and only beginning to improve later)  AND there is the Met office data which proves this beyond a reasonable doubt. Not to mention the ex-pat with the professional interest who lives IN PdL and who keeps a meticulous diary of the weather, and as done for years - - -
so a person sitting in a T shirt with his feet in the pool would have been freezing cold, not hot and sweaty.
The photo can only have been taken around lunchtime on the Sunday 30th April.  When the weather was as described and as shown.

But of course it is the vital and only piece of evidence, apart from their vague statements about tea and carrying comatose children round the place, that Madeleine was still alive and well.
And now we know know that obviously she wasn't.

Remember that the T7 were banished to the Paraiso that day, and even Kate was told to b**** off on a run.

You may say it was not hot and sunny but DCI Redwood does not agree and he is the investigating officer.

 He states Madeleine was alive by the pool on Thursday 3 May and it was hot and sunny. So in your opinion, why is he ignoring an easily proven fact?  It should also be noted the PJ's findings is that M died in apartment 5a on Thursday 3rd May.

Do you seriously think either police force  would ever admit after seven years we never even had the right day?
There is a fuller explanation in my previous post       Truth does not come into it.

Peter - I think you mean Sunday 29th April.

Some weather info for that week here:

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

worriedmum wrote:

\"RIPM '' wrote:
 He states Madeleine was alive by the pool on Thursday 3 May and it was hot and sunny. So in your opinion, why is he ignoring an easily proven fact''

Where is the quote from Redwood about the weather from ,please?

He does know it was cold and windy, because the relevant documentation has been sent to Grange.
It is in the public domain, so here it is.
The black bar at the top is cloud cover, the rest is self explanatory, I think.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

17ºC ( 62ºF)  with a brisk Force 4 breeze from the SW = off the sea, is NOT pool sweating and sunglasses weather.
Many people find this temperature a bit cold, sweater and long trousers needed, especially with the wind chill factor.

PeterMac


I accept that information regarding the weather and the last photo has been sent to O.G.and they have obviously chosen to disregard it.

DCI Redwood through Crimewatch has clearly stated he believes Mrs McCann's version that it was Thursday 3 May and it was hot and sunny.

So if Redwood is running his investigation by ignoring hard facts in favour of McCann fantasy and lies the whitewash is clearly under way.