Photographs revisited - questions

Hello Verdi,

Presss "Quote" (you got the hang of that).

Then highlight the text you don't want (Left click and drag cursor) release and press the delete key.

BlueBag wrote:
Then highlight the text you don't want (Left click and drag cursor) release and press the delete key.

Testing testing..  yep, works a treat.  I thank you very much!

Where were these two shots taken? The facade and paving seem the same as the ground floor apartment entrances, but I was under the impression these were photos of the Payne children. Why would they be in pyjamas there? Or is it possibly E O'Brien? 5A is the only entrance on the block with this shape entrance; the rest are under arches. The only other doorway like this is on the next block along.

April28th wrote:Where were these two shots taken? The facade and paving seem the same as the ground floor apartment entrances, but I was under the impression these were photos of the Payne children. Why would they be in pyjamas there? Or is it possibly E O'Brien? 5A is the only entrance on the block with this shape entrance; the rest are under arches. The only other doorway like this is on the next block along.

Looks like a plastic raincoat not pyjamas. There's a rain hat as well.

It was cold and wet later after Sunday.

I just came across this photo of L Payne. She's 2 here. Clearly able to reach their veranda window door handle (same kind as 5A patio doors)?

Another fly in the proverbial ointment..

'...Russell later asked us for our digital photos of Madeleine and went off somewhere with our camera...'

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

ETA:  Reference to the night of 3rd May 2007, after discovering Madeleine had disappeared.

Verdi wrote:Another fly in the proverbial ointment..

'...Russell later asked us for our digital photos of Madeleine and went off somewhere with our camera...'

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

ETA:  Reference to the night of 3rd May 2007, after discovering Madeleine had disappeared.

Perhaps Russell was checking the SD card for Mr A Woolfall and Gerry+ Gerry's brother in-law to submit the SD/CD discs to the Portugal PJ of pictures of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,reported as the 3 May 2007.

willowthewisp wrote:

Verdi wrote:Another fly in the proverbial ointment..

'...Russell later asked us for our digital photos of Madeleine and went off somewhere with our camera...'

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

ETA:  Reference to the night of 3rd May 2007, after discovering Madeleine had disappeared.

Perhaps Russell was checking the SD card for Mr A Woolfall and Gerry+ Gerry's brother in-law to submit the SD/CD discs to the Portugal PJ of pictures of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,reported as the 3 May 2007.

That must be some portfolio of evidence important to an investigation - enough to fill the National Portrait Gallery ten times over.

Tapas group camera/mobile phone memory
Philip Edmonds photographs showing MBM somewhere in the back/foreground
The Fosters video footage, analysed by Hampshire police at the request of Leicester police [Tapas group recorded information about conversation with bloke met at the Ocean Club, when the delicate (?) subject of paedophilia was discussed]
Photographic footage collated by the CEOP, with Jim Gamble [close contact with Messrs McCann and staunch believer in their total innocence]
Photographs appended to Kate McCann's autobiography

Where do you suppose this portfolio is retained?  In the Rif mountains of North Africa, buried deep by an agent of Metodo3?  A hidden lair in the Algarve wilderness by the hands of the Alpha Investigations Group [all two of of them]?  Was DCI Redwood and the boys in blue actually hiding rather than seeking when digging up the latent soil around PdL? Or somewhere closer to home do you reckon?

But I jest - or do I...

BlueBag wrote:

April28th wrote:Where were these two shots taken? The facade and paving seem the same as the ground floor apartment entrances, but I was under the impression these were photos of the Payne children. Why would they be in pyjamas there? Or is it possibly E O'Brien? 5A is the only entrance on the block with this shape entrance; the rest are under arches. The only other doorway like this is on the next block along.

Looks like a plastic raincoat not pyjamas. There's a rain hat as well.

It was cold and wet later after Sunday.

Just found myself coming back to this in the Tennis photo thread. The sandles are very much like Madeleine's in that photo and the hat looks a lot like Amelie's in the 'last photo'. Which got me to wondering, given the outfit possibly being a dress - could it be this child who Fatima da Silva saw walking up to the Payne's with the rest of the McCann's, and can we be sure who it is?

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

It makes me curious because assuming this photo were Amelie - and it's not really possible to confirm this or not given the way the image has been burnt and lack of perspective, though the children with similar sun hats in the beach shots seem much more diminutive - it implies that photos were being taken of Amelie (a twin) alone, and probably taken while the playground photos were being taken. Amelie already seems conspicuous by her absense from those scenes, and while one could easily say that she was perhaps being changed at that moment, that would make these two photos (27 & 28) completely illogical by proxy (if they are her). Add to this the fact that we're seeing the ground floor facade outside the FRONT doors, not the patio, which supposedly Kate and children mostly used.

Also, adding to my point about the height of Madeleine in relation to L Payne:

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

Madeleine is actually TALLER than L, who can quite obviously reach the veranda door handle, which we were assured by Kate was impossible.

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

Conclusion - Madeleine could reach the door handle in 5A easily, which supports the idea that TM were swinging wildly for the fences to make sure everyone bought the abduction theory in the beginning.

And finally, it appears there is at least one photo, other than the 33/52 which are already known, of Madeleine in the b/w shots which we haven't had in colour yet - 79. This is perhaps as the adult present (I'm assuming David)'s head obscures her face, but she is there next to L nonetheless - note that the top and v-line style are identical to hers in the playground photos, as well as white trainers, down to the length of trousers over them:

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

The facade in the background appears to be the same as we see to the back and right in the colour version of the above photo (also note the trousers overlapping trainers as referred to above):

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

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

Amelie with floppy hat and sandals

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

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

Amelie with floppy hat and sandals

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

Thanks for that, it's a good reference photo. I wish I could dash down to the OC with a tape measure right now so that I could get some literal perspective from it!

I've been wondering - do we know for certain that the PJ received any images in burned form? It struck me that this form, along with the cropping, could be down to a later request when the files were made public (this was actually my assumption until Richard D Hall's video suggested the burning was selectively done by Woolfall et al).

It would make sense that the other families wanted their photo snaps (with their children especially) obscured, as none of them have been in the public eye since (except for Tanner and a little of Oldfield, early cameos were the most we saw). And, since the PJ and anyone else properly investigating would've likely had chance to witness all the children in the T9 group especially, and would hypothetically keep the colour versions, they'd have no need to release them fully along with the files.

As well as this there are other photos in the files obscured in the same way, for instance here, and that we have also got clear versions of the Payne photos, with only the children's eyes censored, again supporting the idea they didn't want them reproduced.

This of course doesn't explain any photos literally missing (such as the Tennis and Last photos, or the young Madeleine photo used on the posters), but it does exclude the idea that there was something to hide in any particular photos that were provided/that we see here?

The subject of authenticity of the few available McCann group holiday photographs has been thrashed out by proclaimed experts and amateurs alike over the past years ad-infinitum but little progress has been made as to why, when and where.  Past diligence has been useful in so far as it gives at least some indication that the three most iconic photographs were published for a specific reason. The so called 'last photograph' as it's become known, being the most significant in terms of tell tale signs of fabrication.  In short, the subject of the photographs has digressed from it's original purpose into a full blown list of conspiracy theories extraordinaire!

Once the subject had exhausted it's shelf life, my thoughts turned more to the absence of photographs as opposed to the existence of photographs - all three of them (as you may have noticed)!  Now this is just not normal - loving parents/guardians, more so when on holiday, take hundreds of snap-shots of their children.  It's what you do, you don't even have to make a conscious decision, it's what you do and take great pleasure in doing.  On the beach, at the pool, in the creche, in the apartment, at tea time, in the playground - all those memorable moments just a click away.

This not only applies to the McCann couple but the other six parents + one grandmother.  I can understand one or two who might be less attentive to their children but the whole lot of them?   I don't buy it, it doesn't add up.  Kate McCann prattles on about rushing back to fetch her camera to snap gorgeous Madeleine on the tennis court on Tuesday 1st;  Rachael Oldfield has Jane Tanner taking the tennis ball photograph on Thursday 3rd;  Jane Tanner doesn't appear to remember the incident at all and yet ...  it all seems to be built around the claimed conversation with the holidaymaker from Hampshire when the subject of photographing children was discussed with specific implications of paedophilia - this tourist I believe to be one Mr. Foster who is said to have volunteered video footage of his holiday to assist with the investigation.

If you look at the black and white/gray-scale images contained in the files, they appear to have been taken at one or three specific locations - Payne's (?) apartment/balcony, the playground and the beach, only supposition on my part but could this be interpreted as only a few situations where cameras where at the ready?  Why were the group so evasive about cameras and photographs taken during their nights at the Tapas restaurant?

Moving on to the focal point ..   David Payne!  A key player in this saga, the one who organized the holiday, a central figure who is always conveniently overlooked or pushed in the background.  The first alarm bell is of course the Gaspar statements, whether or not there is any substance in the allegation is a matter of conjecture but whatever, I would expect the accused to publicly refute it!  Not the sort of allegation to be taken lightly.  Why wasn't D. Payne formally interviewed for a second time by the PJ in May 2007?  Why weren't the Paynes included in the Crimewatch 2013 holiday re-enactment?  Why was the CEOP involved from the very beginning?  Given their function at the time, what possible use could they be to a Portuguese police investigation of a missing three/four year old child?

CEOP - What We Do  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Perhaps this might be more understandable if child abuse was suspected in the first instance and/or if Jim Gamble hadn't so readily bonded with the McCanns.

Why was a CATS file opened in the name of Gerry McCann and another CATS file opened in the name of Kate McCann?  It has been suggested this is normal police procedure in the case of a missing child - why would that be unless abuse is at the core of the investigation.  Besides, Portugal was the investigating force not the UK - it was the McCanns themselves and their elected representatives that initially shouted abduction from the rooftops of PdL - not only abduction but the word paedophile was frequently thrown in, presumably to add weight !?!

Not wishing to initiate an open ended discussion so I revert to the question - why such a scarcity of holiday photographs?  In the words of Gerry McCann - 'how can you prove a negative'.  Good question Mr. McCann - perhaps you would care to answer...

Great post Verdi - I have at times wondered whether the PJ did receive more photos, but didn't publish them all for whatever reason?

Verdi wrote:If you look at the black and white/gray-scale images contained in the files, 

I have a question.

Were the grainy black and white pictures supplied like that to the PJ on the CD disk from the McCanns?

Or did the PJ make them this useless themselves?

I always assumed it was the PJ to protect the children (or something).. but I saw elsewhere that perhaps the PJ received them like that.

Any definite answer?

BlueBag wrote:

Verdi wrote:If you look at the black and white/gray-scale images contained in the files, 

I have a question.

Were the grainy black and white pictures supplied like that to the PJ on the CD disk from the McCanns?

Or did the PJ make them this useless themselves?

I always assumed it was the PJ to protect the children (or something).. but I saw elsewhere that perhaps the PJ received them like that.

Any definite answer?

A question I too would like answered by an authorative source.  In reply to joyce1938 somewhere, I said I would have a poke around to see if I can find anything about these photographs but haven't got around to it yet.  I was rather hoping someone else would save me the effort.

I think I also queried the reason for publishing indistinguishable photographs, surely if it was to protect the children (or something :) they wouldn't have included the images in the PJ files released for public interest.  On the surface they don't appear to be of any significance to the investigation.

Who is Madeleine McCann??

This girl in Donegal, only 3 weeks before PDL?                                  Or this girl in PDL?

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

Both is supposed to be the same child, but you don´t need not be a rocket scientist to see that is not the case.

There is more discussion of the above photo on "McCann's Easter Break Donegal 2007" thread.

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

It's a job to be sure of the picture of a family eating also and taken from a good distance.  Can't hope to see her face clearly, so I would want to reserve judgment on that.  joyce1938

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I know all of this has been discussed but the contrast in appearance is undeniable. There is a resemblance between the two (a relative?) but it can't even be argued away as being a younger MBM as it is fixed as Easter 2007 by MBM's cousin on his Facebook page (Easter Mon is traditional day for egg rolling); and Amelie and Sean (in the full version) are clearly 2+years old.

I've got another one for you:

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

The Everton shirt MBM. Standing (I would say) in a kitchen/utility room (doesn't matter whose). Camera lens, if anything, slightly above eye level. Looks like normal base cupboards and worktop in background. Standard finished height for 40mm worktops is 91-93cm. So why does MBM look at least 7/8cm taller than the worktop height when we are repeatedly told she was 90cm tall?

I am incapable of posting photographs but look at this of Madeleine in this piece,looks very different......................

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
What happened to Madeleine's pink trolley bag?

NickE wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
What happened to Madeleine's pink trolley bag?

And what did she carry in it? A pink blanket, a cuddle cat and a sticker book. Are children allowed hand luggage?

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

I have made a compilation of 3 photos of Madeleine. Left and middle are from Donegal and one on right from PdLuz. Given the clothing in left and middle photos these look like the same person. Does this help with matching to photo 3? Would be grateful for your views.

pendragon2007 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I have made a compilation of 3 photos of Madeleine. Left and middle are from Donegal and one on right from PdLuz. Given the clothing in left and middle photos these look like the same person. Does this help with matching to photo 3? Would be grateful for your views.

@ pendragon 2007

Very good. Well done.

By your simple but effective choice of just three photos, you have proved beyond doubt that Madeleine McCann was indeed in Donegal at Easter 2007.

Your post should kill off once and for all any notion that she wasn't.

Admittedly the photo on the left doesn't look like her at all. But that's just one photo, and sometimes just one random photo does not really give a very accurate impression of someone.

The middle photo makes the whole thing crystal clear - thank you again   

The photo of maddie with family eating something, I did not at first think it was her, but realize now it most probably  is her taken from a distance.  Her pink hairband is holding all her fringe and hair back, when we are used to seeing her without and and fringe across face.  I now feel this is her.  joyce1938