 |
|
Reply
| | From:  tin-lizzy (Original Message) | Sent: 3/2/2008 4:36 AM |
theAuthor: Madeleine - The FORGED LAST PHOTO
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 31, 32, 33 Next
Forum Index -> The hunt for Maddy
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
theAuthor
Joined: 13 Jul 2007
Posts: 235 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:55 pm Post subject: theAuthor: Madeleine - The FORGED LAST PHOTO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GREETINGS GENTLES! For reasons that he does not fully understand, the author’s threads seem to attract heavy troll attack. Should the reader be so generously disposed as to find it worthwhile, a short comment or "bump" would be appreciated.
And Yet Another Post: Thursday 6 Sep 2007, Timed at True High Noon
THE GREAT “LAST PHOTO�?FORGERY
Introduction It seems to the author that if the photograph of Madeleine, commonly known as “the last photo�? is a forgery, the implications for Dr Gerald and Kate McCann are devastating. Dr Kate McCann took the photograph, and Dr Gerald McCann is one of its three subjects. Because of its importance then, the author does not apologise for the rather lengthy nature of this post. Those who persevere through to the end will find that the author provides them with a special treat! One quick piece of advice, if clicking on the links doesn’t work, simply copy /paste into the browser.
Significance of the Last Photo
On 24 May 2007, the McCanns released the last photograph of Madeleine via the PA (Associated Press) news agency. It received wide coverage in the media. In the Times of that day it was reported: “The picture was taken by Madeleine’s mother Kate, 38, on her own camera in the holiday resort of Praia da Luz, Portugal, where they were staying.�? “The picture was taken at 2.29pm on May 3 - Mrs McCann’s camera clock is one hour out so the display reads 1.29pm.�? The Times accredits the photo to “Kate McCann /PA�?
Significance of the Photo
If the photograph is genuine, it provides objective and independent witness that Madeleine Mccann was alive at 02.29 pm on 3 May 2007. The significance of this is huge; no other such evidence exists. Before moving on, permit the author rapidly to dispatch to the trash-can two pieces of hear-say. First, the Sol article of 11 August, is oft quoted as stating that Madeleine was collected from the Creche at 6.00 pm on 3 May. In fact, that article says no such thing. Second, a report of a CCTV video showing Madeleine at a local restaurant at 6.30 pm 3 May was, and remains, pure fiction �?a total fabrication. If, on the other hand, the claims of the photograph can be shown to be fraudulent, the Drs McCann find themselves at themselves at the difficult end of some very “unhelpful�?qustions. The most unhelpful of all may be phrased as follows: “Drs Gerald and Kate McCann, as you have conspired to place, in the public domain, fraudulent evidence that Madeleine was alive at 2.29 pm 3 May, is it not unreasonable for the reader to assume that she was already dead by that time?�? “And does it not appear to follow that that you are involved, at least, in the concealment of her death?�? “And, prima facie, does this not make you guilty of criminal conspiracy to pervert the course of justice - not to mention wasting Police time?�? Gentle reader, as you can see, many legal issues hang from the authenticity or otherwise of “the last photo�?and the claims that it makes. Other things hang from it as well. Should the photo prove to be a fake, the PA being a long established, and highly regarded press agency would have to take a view on having its repution for accuracy and integrity traduced by a couple of fraudsters and swindlers. Action against the McCanns by the PA in the civil courts is certainly a possibility - even more so should the PA start getting stick the customers who came to the conclusion that they had paid good money for a pack of lies And then there is Mr Rupert Murdoch to think about. Mr Murdoch, we are led to believe, does not relish either himself or his media interests being made a monkey of. If Mr Murdoch felt that this had been the case, then Mr Murdoch could be very “unhelpful�? And Mr Murdoch might not be alone. A great deal hangs on the claims of that photograph
The Published Photograph
None of the above images bear any date stamp. Whether the original photograph circulated by the PA bore one is unclear; certainly, the author has not retrieved one. In any event, the presence of a date stamp (or the EXIF file that records such information) is immaterial. If the photo is fraudulent, supplying a false date /time is simply another problem for the forger to solve, and is easily done.
The Composition of the Photograph
The people. Left to right: Dr Gerald McCann, Amelie McCann, Madeleine McCann A noticeable absentee from the picture is Amelie’s twin brother, Sean, who, we are informed is “away playing�? or in other acounts, the cause of Madeleine’s laughter No other person or person’s are present, which as we shall see later may be significant.
Significant Features for Identifying the Location of the Photograph:
1. The pool 2. The two large sunbeds in the foreground 3. The parasol pole (between the two sunbeds to the left of Dr Gerald McCann 4. The tree 5. The sunbeds behind the tree 6. The white wall, forming the backdrop to the scene. Note the shrubs /climbers up against it.
The Location
Here you will be able to see the feature described above: pool, sun beds (though not the same colour), tree and wall The sunbeds behind the tree in the “last photo�?belong to the second, and larger pool, and (if you look closely) are more clearly shown in the following link: With the location of the photograph established, let us return to the aerial photograph that is the best of the three for our purposes, but first to the last photo: If you toggle between the “last photo�?and the aerial photo, it is easy to locate the equivalent position of the three McCanns in the aerial photo: on the pool rim, near to where the. They are at about 10.00 o’clock, close to the left of the three children sitting by the poolside. Before moving on, may we just note, to avoid yet further confusion, that the areas labelled tapas bars in the Gazetta Digital and the Guardian photographs are no such thing: they are sun bathing areas. Regardless of the conclusions we may reach about the “last photo�? here at least we catch Photos peddling false information Link to Gazeta Digital “Tapas Restaurant�?falsehood (you can actually see the sun beds):
Analysing the “Last Photo�?
The methodology that the forensic scientist adopts for artefacts such as the last photo, is rather different to that employed when examining, say, suspect bank notes. In that case, the suspect note can be compared alongside a known, genuine bank note, and checked for differences. When the artefact is a photograph, such as this one, there is no original with which to compare it. Thus, the approach, at least initially, lies in examining it for inconsistencies, the which fall into two main groups: 1. Inconsistencies between the photograph and the objective world that it purports to record 2. Internal inconsistencies, within the photograph
In determining whether the “last photo�? and the claims made for it, are fraudulent, both of the above are relevant.
In order to test for the above, the assumption is made, at least initially, that the photograph is an honest document; that it was taken as claimed at 02.29 pm (14.29 hrs) local time on 3 May 2007; and that it has not been tampered with, subsequently, in order to deceive. Before proceeding, let us note that the photograph is aligned vertically to a high degree of accuracy. The figures, the tree, and the parasol pole all indicate this. Readers who wish to closely scrutinise the arguments that are presented below, will find it helpful to print a copy of the last photo, so as to have it to hand. Alternatively, opening the photo in a new tab or window, so as to be able to toggle between photo and this text may be useful. Either or both - it’s up to you. In any event the link is: The author has placed the analysis of the photograph’s internal consistencies in an appendix at the end of this post. He is able to confirm that inconsistencies are identified. He has done this so as to concentrate on the altogether more significant analysis that follows. The Photograph and the Objective World We will now examine the relationship between the photograph, and what we know of the objective world that it purports to represent. As stated, we will start with the supposition that the photograph is genuine, and that it was taken, as claimed, at 02.29 pm (14.29 hrs) on 3 May 2007. From what is presented to us, we know at least three things about the objective world. First, we know the location, having established that earlier in this post. Secondly, we know the time /date in the objective world, that is to say 14.29 hrs. Thirdly, we know that the sun was shining. From the above, using an ephemeris (a set of astronomical tables) we can calculate to a very high degree of accuracy two very useful pieces of information: 1. The height of the sun in the sky, this is determined by what is termed its altitude - the angle that a line from the sun to the observer makes with a line from the observer to the horizon. At 14.29 hrs (02.29 pm) on 3 May 2007, Praia da Luz, although the sun is high in the sky, it is far from vertical. In fact it is at an altitude of 65 degrees (to the nearest 0.5 of a degree). 2. The direction of the sun (its compass bearing, or “azimuth�?for the technically minded). To the nearest 0.5 of a degree this is 214.5 degrees (E from true N), or, for readers who prefer compass bearings to the West of true SW. We will deal with the significance of each of these in turn. But first allow the author to provide a link whereby the above information may be verified - should the reader wish to do so. A free ephemeris (astronomical table) site may be found at: http://www.skyviewcafe.com/index.php The online ephemeris takes a little getting used to, but, ultimately, it is far quicker than the author’s old parchments and quill pen. But as he has remarked before, it is not more accurate.
The Sun’s Height in relation to the Length of Shadow
The long shadow cast by Dr McCann’s chin requires the sun to be at the high angle of about 80 degrees (we will demonstrate this later). Thus, it impossible to reconcile the length of the shadow cast by Dr McCann’s chin with the actual (and lower) sun altitude of 65 degrees, as it was at 14.29 hrs, 3 May 2007. Now, we are told that the camera clock time is one-hour slow, reading13.29 hrs, but let us suppose that this was the actual time that the photograph was taken. At 13.29 hrs, the sun’s attitude is higher, at 68.5 degrees (again to the nearest 0.5 of a degree). The sun’s angle is slightly better, but a long way short of the 80 degrees required. In fact, nowhere on the earth at 14.29 hrs, 3 may 2007 did the sun have an altitude of 80 degrees. Keeping to Praia da Luz’s line of longitude, at that time, the sun’s greatest altitude (about 76 degrees) would have been found in the tropics, some 1500 miles (2400 km) to the south of Praia da Luz and at about latitude 16 North.
Determining the Angle of the Sun Required to Cast Dr McCann’s Head Shadow
A number of approaches may be used to crack this problem, ranging from imaging software through to trigonometry. The accuracy of all of them, however, depends on a single fact. How far does the tip of Dr McCann’s chin protrude, horizontally, beyond his chest? The method that the author has chosen for this post is determined by his normal practice of only relying only on methods or facts that readers can verify for themselves �?always assuming of course that they are inclined to do so. It is accurate, and, what is more, has the additional benefit of NOT resorting to trigonometry. provided that you can measure accurately with a ruler; can divide one number by another, and use a protractor to measure angles, you will have no difficulty following the method.
Principle of the Method
If only it were in profile, we could measure the angle that a ray of light has to make, in order to cast the shadow. If the link does not open when clicked, you may have to copy /paste it into your browser �?Getty links can be temperamental. Once done, those with PCs may choose to take a better view, enlarge to 125 %, and press F11. We will refer to this image as “the profile photo�? If only we were able to map the shadow, from “the last photo�?onto “the profile photo�? all we would have to do is draw a line (“the altitude line�? from the lowest part of the shadow and so as just to graze Dr McCann’s chin. The angle that the “altitude line�?makes with the horizontal provides the altitude that the sun would have to reach to cast such a shadow. Having done this, we could then draw in a second “altitude�?line, this time at a predetermined 65 degrees, to show where the true shadow would have reached at 14.29 hrs, 3 May 2007. The principle that lies behind the mapping is to determine the ratio of (a) the length of “the head plus shadow�? to (b) the length of “the head�? Once we have this ratio, we can position the length of the shadow on any photograph of Dr McCann’s head.
Undertaking the analysis
You will need: a sharp pencil (or drawing pen), a ruler, and a protractor (a half-round perspex /plastic thing for measuring angles - you probably had to buy one for school and then hardly ever used it. You will also need good quality prints of “the last photo�?and “the profile photo�?�?one of each �?the best your printer will afford. Although you may be tempted to do so, there is little advantage in making huge blow-ups of the prints. This simply enlarges the noise associated with the image edges, and doesn’t help with measurement. And “yes�?you could use sharpening software (e.g. Adobe Photo Shop in edit mode), but it’s best to keep things simple and under your own control. 1. Working as carefully as possible. Draw three horizontal lines on the “last photo�? · through the bottom centre of Dr McCann’s hairline on his forehead (“the hair line�? · through the bottom centre of his chin (“the horizontal chin line�?, and · through the bottom centre of the chin shadow (“the horizontal shadow line�? 2. Carefully Measure and record the following distances between the lines: · The (vertical) distance between “the hair line�?and “the shadow�?line, and · The (vertical) distance between “the hair line�?and the “chin line�? Do this at least twice and take the average. 3. Using a calculator, divide the distance given by “a�?above by the distance given by “b�?above. Incidentally, if you don’t have a calculator to hand, just enter the figures in the Google search bar. Use the forward slash sign, /, for “divided by�? then click go. We will call this number “the ratio�? The author does not wish to influence your readings, but it is hardly a secret that you will find “the ratio�?to be just over 2. 4. Take the “profile photograph�? and draw the following lines · Horizontal line through the hairline · Horizontal line through the lowest part of the chin 5. Measure the vertical distance between the two lines, and multiply this by “the ratio�? For the profile photograph, this gives you the vertical distance between the “hair line�?and the new “horizontal shadow line�? You can now draw in this new “horizontal shadow line�? parallel to the other two lines on the “profile�?photo. And, in doing so, of course, you have just determined where the bottom of the shadow in the last photo would be. 6. Finally, all we now have to do is to draw where a ray of light at 65 degrees to the horizontal, and just grazing Dr McCann’s chin, would hit the front of his body. To do this, you need to use your protractor. The protractor must be used so that its straight edge is accurately horizontal and at the bottom. Then, keeping the central “dot�?or “cross lines�?exactly at the edge of Dr McCann’s chest, position the protractor so that 65-degree mark just grazes the chin. Check that the protractor is horizontal, and recheck the 65-degree position. When you are quite satisfied that you have positioned the protractor as accurately as possible, mark the two ends of the protractor’s 0-180 degree base line. Now, remove the protractor and draw in the line. Where the line crosses Dr McCann’s chest indicates where the end of the shadow would have been at 14.29 hrs on 3 May 2007. Of course, one can also use the protractor to determine what the actual altitude (angle) of the sun would have to have been to cast the “last photo shadow
|
|
 First
Previous
2-5 of 5
Next
Last
|
|
Reply
| |
Results and their Interpretation Q. Do the lengths of the “last photo�?shadow and the true, ie 65-degree shadow reconcile? A. No, gentle reader they do not. Q. Is the last photo shadow longer? A. Yes, gentle reader. Considerably. Conclusion: the last Photo is a fraud. The shadows have been added by means of an editing program Q. But has the author selected a photo that is particularly advantageous to the fraud theory? A. No, gentle reader, he has not. Try these for size �?the author has: 9. Link: (edit note: the original link provided here no longer functions)
They are not all equally good, but with appropriate interpretation, all yield essentially the same result.
The Sun’s Direction in Relation to the Dr McCann
As demonstrated earlier, the location of “the last photo�?is known. We also know that Dr Gerald McCann is facing almost directly into the sun. Because at 2.14 pm 3 May, 2007 the sun is at 214.5 degrees (E of true N), Dr McCann must be facing in that direction. Comparing the photograph of the pool with the Google Map satellite image of the complex, showing the pool allows the direction in which Dr McCann is facing to be estimated. Do not be misled by the fact that the Google image seems to show the tree in a different position. This is because the satellite image records the trees shadow. Because the colour of the tree’s foliage matches the grass, it cannot be seen the available resolution. Once you have positioned the tree, it is a simple matter to work out the broad direction in which Dr McCann faces, and to compare his with the sun’s actual position. Is it possible to reconcile this with the sun’s direction? Perhaps surprisingly, the answer is “yes�?
Modus Operandi of the Forger
A Conundrum Well it appears that we have a puzzle. We have false shadows that are: 1. Right for the sun’s direction (effectively its compass bearing), so the alleged time is right, but 2. Wrong for the sun’s altitude, so the alleged time is wrong. What can be the explanation?
An Earlier, “Doctored�?Photo?
How can these apparently contradictory facts be reconciled? We now know that the photograph was not taken when it was claimed, could it have been taken earlier? Initially, this appears to be the most likely scenario, and is the one, which most sceptics have favoured. But is it likely? Photographs released to the press reveal that the McCann’s seem quite competent photographers. Where possible, photographs such as the “last photo�?are taken with the sun behind the photographer. It certainly would be possible to do so here. Let us assume that he photograph is, in a sense, genuine, but as it were “one that was prepared earlier�? In this case, one would expect Dr Gerald McCann to be looking towards the photographer, Dr Kate McCann, who would have her back to the sun, ie Dr Gerald McCann would be looking towards the sun. The fact that Dr McCann, (unusually for him) is wearing sunglasses reinforces this. But if Dr McCann is looking into the sun, then we know that the photo time, if not the date, would be about right. In which case the shadow length would also be about right �?but of course, it’s wrong! So an earlier but “doctored�?photo doesn’t fit comfortably with the facts: not impossible, perhaps, but unlikely.
A Later “Doctored�?Photograph?
By later, of course, is meant, one taken after 3 May. Perhaps “later in parts�?would be a more accurate description, as this would seem to imply that an earlier image of Madeleine had been stitched in. We cannot of course be absolutely certain how The Drs McCann concocted the forgery, but the author supposes a scenario something like this: 1. After Madeleine’s death (some time early on 3 May, or possibly the previous night) the Drs McCann discover, but do not release, a photo of Madeleine that they intend to put to later use. This may well have been taken at the pool. 2. They plan to complete the forgery by taking another “the base�?photograph at the pool, bearing the date stamp, 13.29 hrs, 3 May 2007, but of course the actual date will be later, but before 24 May when the forgery was released. 3. The camera time is set to 13.29 hrs 3 May 2007, but this is not “entered�? The McCann’s now have four plans: A, B, C, & D. They need a flexible approach because of (at least) two very important criteria that have to be met. First, the chosen location on the pool rim must be available, ie not occupied by anyone else Second there must be no other holiday-makers or staff in the photo’s field of view. If left in, such person’s could expose the forgery. True they could be edited out, but in order to supply convincing background, yet another photo, without them, is required. Everything, including the editing, gets more difficult. The author supposes that the forgers have another solution in mind The plans are as follows A. Take the photo at 13.29 hrs at an appropriate position on the pool rim (facing more-or-less south). The preset clock will be started, and the photograph taken. Excellent. The shadows and sun direction match the time B. Take the photo one hour later at 14.29 hrs at an appropriate position on the pool rim (facing more or less WSW). The preset camera clock (now wrong at 13.29 hrs) will be started, and the photograph taken. Almost as good. The shadows and sun direction match the actual time of 14.29 hrs. The wrong camera time is easily explained away by the camera clock being one hour out. C. Take the photo at ANYTIME, but at the “A�?position i.e. facing more or less south. The preset camera clock will be started at 13.29 hrs, and the photograph taken. Not so good. The apparent sun direction is right for 13.29 hrs (it doesn’t matter that the real sun is elsewhere). However, the photograph’s shadows will be wrong, and will have to be edited. D. Take the photo at ANYTIME, but at the “B�?position on the pool rim, i.e. more-or-less facing WSW. The preset camera clock (now wrong at 13.29 hrs) will be started, and the photograph taken. Least good. The apparent sun direction is right for 14.29 hrs (it doesn’t matter that the real sun is elsewhere), but the photograph’s shadows are wrong, and will have to be edited. Also, The camera clock is now one hour out, but as before this is easily explained The choice fell to plan “D�? We are not privy to the precise reasons why, and the author does not speculate further.
The Key to the Timing of the Photograph
It would appear that the hour slot somehow relates to the crèche mid-day break of 3 May, when the twins would be available for photography. Regrettably, Madeleine, who was already dead did not attend the crèche that day, hence the need for the photograph proving she is alive. The fake abduction which was staged between about 9.30 pm and 10 00 pm that day requires a “live�?Madeleine. But why 13.29 hrs / 14.29 hrs? Discussion, such as there has been, has concentrated on 14.29 hrs. The key to the whole mystery, however, is 13.29 hrs. The author reveals “why�?gentles. And if you have got this far, you have earned your treat!
Click on the following link:
BUT BEFORE YOU DO THIS, BEWARE! YOU ARE ABOUT TO PEER INTO THE MIND OF THE FORGER! WILL YOU ALSO GLIMPSE THE MIND OF A KILLER? WE DO NOT KNOW. BUT IT WOULD BEST TO BE PREPARED! Scroll down to 3 May 2007, and read across to the time of solar (or true) noon. EUREKA - A TRUE EPIPHANY MOMENT Someone has used an almanac �?and not for the first time. At solar noon, the sun is at its highest point in the sky �?and more significantly is due south. The exact position on the pool rim for plans “A�?and “C�?is easily located �?a small (even) toy compass would suffice for this. The plan “B�?and “D�?position poses a slightly more difficult problem. One simple solution would be to visit the pool (say) the previous day, and identify or mark the spot on the rim where you face directly into the sun at 14.29 hrs. You could identify, or mark the “A�?and “C�?positions at the same time. Had the author been the forger, he would have started the camera clock, let it run on for a couple of minutes so as to disguise the solar noon connection, and then taken the picture. He supposes that this was the original plan. It seems likely, however, that things did not go entirely smoothly that day - we’re using plan “D�?don’t forget. Was that little detail forgotten? Maybe it was thought that by switching to using the 14.29 hrs time, the solar noon time wouldn’t be noticed. But it was: the author noticed it, and gentles he has pointed this out to the police.
A COMMON MODUS OPERANDI
The forging of the photograph and the staging of the fake abduction share a number of common features: 1. Both are fraudulent, one an artefact, the other an event 2. Both involve an illusion: there was no abduction �?and the sun Dr McCann looks towards is not there 3. They both involve access to an almanac or almanac-type information The author concludes that it is highly likely that a single mind was behind both.
A Final Look at the Last Photo
Of course, once you’ve proved the forgery, it’s difficult to understand how you were ever taken in by it. Do look at it for a moment or two. It’s a most peculiar photo. Madeleine is not just glancing away at the crucial moment. She has a fully formed laugh It’s almost as if she is in another photo altogether. And regrettably, that is the case. Madeleine was already long dead when her image was stitched into this forgery.
As ever, gentles, your shadowy correspondent, the author, leaves you to your thoughts.
He returns to where he abides -deep in the heart of Umbra Yours �?author APPENDIX The Internal Consistency of the Photograph with respect to the Shadows Cast
The Shadows Cast by Dr McCann’s Chin and Nose
Let us examine the shadow cast by Dr McCann’s chin. For this analysis, we must remember that we have established that the photograph is vertically framed. To avoid confusion, it is also important to remember that Dr McCann’s (say) right ear or right sun glass lens will appear to the observer to be on the left side, as seen in the photograph. The key to analysing this is to draw (or imagine) a line that passing through the bottom centre of Dr McCann’s chin and the bottom centre of the chin’s shadow. Had the photograph been able to record it, this would have been revealed as the line taken by the ray of sunlight falling upon the tip of Dr McCann’s chin. We will call this the “chin line�? We will now concentrate on Dr McCann’s shadow nose - about 1/3 of the way up the head shadow on the (observer’s) left hand side. Consider a ray of light falling on the tip of Dr McCann’s nose, his actual nose that is, not the shadow nose. This ray of light will be parallel (to a very high degree of accuracy) to the “chin line�? So let us draw, or, if you prefer, imagine, this second, and parallel line it. We will call it the “nose line�? and we note that it almost coincides exactly with the chin line. Now, it follows that that the point of the shadow nose must lie somewhere along the line of the “nose line�? This is an inescapable result of a combination of geometry and the laws of physics. And is the tip of the shadow nose along the “nose line�? Gentle reader- it is not. Consistency of the Chin and Nose Shadows �?Another Point of View Perhaps the reader requires a little more evidence. It is clear from the shadow cast by Dr McCann’s head, that he is looking directly towards the sun. Let us qualify that - in fact it is “almost�?directly towards the sun. Let us draw (or again, imagine) a vertical line passing through the bottom centre of Dr McCann’s actual chin. We will call this the “vertical chin line�? Were Dr McCann looking in the exact direction of the sun, the “vertical chin line�?would pass through the bottom centre of his shadow chin In fact, of course, it doesn’t. The shadow chin is to the (observer’s) right of the “vertical chin line�? Instead of the sun’s rays hitting Dr McCann’s chin, as it were, square on, they must be very slightly angled from (the observer’s) left to right Next, draw a vertical line through the tip of Dr McCann’s nose. Gentle reader �?you’re probably getting the hang of this by now - we’re going to call this the “vertical nose line�? The consequence of the light entering the photograph from the (observer’s) left to right (however slight) is as follows. In the same way that the shadow chin point is to the (observer’s) right of the “vertical chin line�?so the shadow nose point must also be to the (observer’s) right of the “vertical nose line�? And is it? Gentle reader, it is not.
Appraisal of the above
To maintain our assumption that the photograph is an honest document, the only possibility seems to be that we have misidentified the nose shadow. In other words that the bulge in the shadow is cast by something other than Dr McCann’s nose. But what object might that be? Once again, our starting point has to be the fact that the suns rays are slanting in to Dr McCann’s head very slightly from left to right. Consequently, only features on the left (as observed) side of Dr McCann’s face could cast such a shadow. We can identify two: 1. Dr McCann’s right (observer’s left) ear? Is this possible? The answer is no. For the first time in this analysis we shall consider the sun’s altitude (elevation, or height in the sky) for the swelling to be the ear, the sun would have to be behind him (not only inconsistent with the chin shadow, but actually impossible at this time /date /location). Perhaps if we were charitable, we might concede that a vertical sun might cast such a shadow, but again Portugal being outside the tropics, this is never possible, on any occasion, anywhere in Portugal. 2. Dr McCann’s sunglasses �?that is to say his right (the observer’s) left lens /frame? Once again, the answer is no. There are several ways in which this can be demonstrated. The simplest is as follows. Were the shadow swelling caused by the (observer’s) left lens /frame, then the right lens /frame would cast a broadly symmetrical shadow, and there would be a swelling on the other side of the chin shadow as well. Alternatively, we can return to the approach adopted at the beginning of this analysis. Here, we draw a line through the left-most point of the (observer’s) left lens /frame that is parallel to the “chin line�? The shadow lens /frame would have to be on this line. It is close, but not close enough.
But if that does not convince, all we have to do is to draw a second line. This time it goes through the right-most point of the (observer’s) right lens frame parallel to the chin line. If the swelling on the left were due the glasses, there would have to be an equivalent shadow along this line: there is not.
Other Internal Inconsistencies
Before concluding, we should just note that there are many other inconsistent shadows: Shadows where there ought not to be; shadows cast in the wrong direction; the absence of shadows where there ought to be shadows; not to mention shadows that are too dark or too light. The author, however will not burden the reader further in this regard. Last edited by theAuthor on Fri Sep 07, 2007 4:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
beguiled Joined: 19 Aug 2007
Posts: 234 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:58 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would if I could but I cannae!
Back to top
MaryPoppins Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 124 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:02 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gor blimey Author... - what on earth...
(Just managed to get into the bar, - sat with a little liquid refreshment, awaiting the evening news.. ...) Will of course read though... (..but may have to leave comment for a little while... )
Back to top
|
|
Reply
| |
speedscot Joined: 22 Aug 2007
Posts: 187
Location: Scottish Borders
Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote="beguiled"] I would if I could but I cannae![/quote] Joined: 18 May 2007
Posts: 1150 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome back. I've quickly read over all that you have written and will study the links, its beyond me to do the 'maths' etc ! although I do own a protractor As you can see the forum is in overload - and if I manage to post, Im will be lucky. Thanks again
_________________
You cannot shift the responsibility of BLAME - guilty of neglect for each child, each night of the holiday. The rest is under investigation.
Back to top
pixie Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 177 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:19 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
as always .... a fascinating read Author. That has really given me some 'food for thought'....I do remember in the early days when the photo was first released seeing a date stamp but since then only cropped ones have been released When would you say the photo was doctored...hmm good choice of words eh?? And, it would it have to have been a digital photo done with Photoshop?? Your threads always amaze me and I can appreciate the work you have put into them
Back to top
maz2007 Joined: 30 May 2007
Posts: 885 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:24 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bump
Back to top
baldyboy Joined: 20 Aug 2007
Posts: 79 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:25 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You should be writing for Jackanory. Way too much time on your hands my friend.
Back to top
madcatwoman Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Posts: 79 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:26 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have always found that photo odd for a start the shadow of the tree is a different direction to the other shadows and yes it looks as if little M has been photo shopped the picture looks as if its been layered I notice between maddie and the twin there is also a thin black line which does not follow the rest of the pool
I notice the little bit in Maddies hair also her hair looks as if its blowing in the wind as if she is sitting on a beach
Back to top
kitty Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Posts: 71
Location: South Australia
Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author, a brilliant analysis of the photo.
Back to top
waccy Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 417 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
****** Hell Author....What an excellent post and excellent research Must admit this last photo has always struck me as odd and now you point out the obvious that Madeleine has been stitched in it ALL makes sense . Bravo Zulo. Last edited by waccy on Fri Sep 07, 2007 12:35 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
elleesa Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 211 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there any possible way you could put this into a short but succinct paragraph? Many of us are going on very little sleep since yesterday, and the brain just isn't working.
Back to top
question Joined: 10 Aug 2007
Posts: 19 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:39 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the enlightenment Author. I suspected this all the time for reasons of what I think might have happened.
Back to top
confused Joined: 01 Jul 2007
Posts: 419 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:42 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, the Autjor, unfortunately this is very late time to receive and digest such a piece. Just, alerted to the shadows by you, felt: that Amelies face under the hat should be shadowed, but is rather bright.
Back to top
LogicMan Joined: 07 Jun 2007
Posts: 3527 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:52 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear the Author This is such a fantastice and well researched post, and I am so very glad you passed on your findings to the investigating authorities...... I am not going to pretend that it has all sunk in just yet, and with things moving very fast, I may wait until the small hours to have a close look at all the images you provide, get my protractor out, and draw some lines...... ..... But this is just amazing research, thank you for gracing these boards with your presence......... Simply amazing......... Bravo.....Bravo........Bravo.......... .
_________________
Don't Complain to me.........you need to take it up with the PJ, FSS laboratories and Scotland Yard now...... Long Live The Internet.
Back to top
Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
Forum Index -> The hunt for Maddy All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 31, 32, 33 Next
Page 1 of 33 |
|
Reply
| |
theAuthor: Madeleine - The FORGED LAST PHOTO
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 31, 32, 33 Next
Forum Index -> The hunt for Maddy
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
endreas Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Posts: 409 Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:42 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote="urcrazy"][Exactly - well spotted. Why others didn't notice that they were being led up the path with all that 'detail' about nautical tables etc, I shall never know. But i still found the original post, and some of his others, distinctly creepy!![/quote] something very odd about the author. continuing to "seep" misinformation, and real;ly frightening scenarios to feed the ant-mccanns. in legal terms, inciting a mob mentallity to cause harm. hope someone looks into who he/she is.
Back to top
clarence Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Posts: 14 Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:52 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear The Author Thats quite a long protracted theory you have there eh! This picture does not look like it has been put through photo-shop or any other editing program. For a start, the original picure is in the camera. Do you think, even if it was "doctored" The McCanns would be stupid enough to take the picture outside with loads of background "noise?" Why not inside with the right b***dy time set in the camera? Because if this was a "planned fake" don't you think they would have set the camera to the correct time zone?
Think logically man! They didn't do it did they - the PJ know they can't prove it and all they have is some DNA evidence given to them by US here in the UK because they are so b***dy inept they can't conduct these test themselves.
The PJ were warned by a senior British detective "Do NOT attempt to build a case around DNA evidence alone". Did they listen....NO, their approach failed and thats why they are now washing their hands of this altogether. I still hope someone finds Madeline alive.
Back to top
lastbow1917 Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Posts: 55 Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:55 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote="endreas"]this photo is a fraud - by the person who posted about it on the internet.[/quote] If you are correct, who posted the image onto the internet? Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Posts: 55 Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote="clarence"]For a start, the original picure is in the camera.[/quote] Source, please. If it is a digital image, is it possible that the card (containing the original picture) has parted company from the camera? [quote="clarence"]They didn't do it did they[/quote] What didn't they do? [quote="clarence"]I still hope someone finds Madeline alive.[/quote] I hope Madeleine is alive and well. Last edited by lastbow1917 on Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:58 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
lastbow1917 Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Posts: 55 Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:55 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote="Lily"]Soooo....... if the cafe episode is taken to be true for a minute, is there a need for a faked photo? (There might be one - but it doesn't seel to be proving that M was alive at x hour).[/quote] Maybe the cafe episode is true. And possibly this photo fits in with LogicMan's theory? Three possible scenarios (of course there are also other possibilities):
(1) A genuine abduction on the evening of 3 May?
(2) Accidental death (or manslaughter or murder)?
(3) LogicMan's theory (or a derivation of that theory)?
Back to top
kpnuts Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 664 Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 1:18 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUMP with a link to MaddyPetition's thread saying photo is "massively doctored"... Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 196 Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 2:10 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with those who say she looks as if she had more tan in the tennis ball picture. The picture does look a little funny to me. Why the McCanns would want to fake a picture is beyond me. Perhaps they just wanted to show Madeleine being happy on her final day.
Back to top
roisin Joined: 12 Sep 2007
Posts: 32 Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:07 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bump
Back to top
Lex Joined: 22 Jul 2007
Posts: 72 Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 7:11 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote="kpnuts"]BUMP with a link to MaddyPetition's thread saying photo is "massively doctored"...
Yes...BUMP.
Back to top
urcrazy
Joined: 16 Sep 2007
Posts: 141 Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 9:39 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote="endreas"][quote="urcrazy"][Exactly - well spotted. Why others didn't notice that they were being led up the path with all that 'detail' about nautical tables etc, I shall never know. But i still found the original post, and some of his others, distinctly creepy!![/quote] something very odd about the author. continuing to "seep" misinformation, and real;ly frightening scenarios to feed the ant-mccanns. in legal terms, inciting a mob mentallity to cause harm. hope someone looks into who he/she is.[/quote] Or possibly it was an attempt to see just how easily lots of people are fooled by what sounds like a serious, scientific investigation.
The answer of course is - plenty.
I think he/she/it did it for their own amusement, but it's still creepy! And now we all know about the testimony from the restaurant where they all had tea, it's clear that the McCanns never 'needed' this photo in the first place.
Chumps, not chimps, follow stuff like this as if it's gospel. BTW, others are now claiming that pro-McCann people posted these messages about the photo to discredit them!!
Back to top
technitalk Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 446 Posted: Wed Sep 19, 2007 12:38 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No recent NEWS about TheAuthor-ised version from our correspondent in PDL perhaps he's opened a Photo Shop or SKY-ving
Back to top
waccy Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 418 Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 11:07 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The children in the party were dropped at the Mark Warner creche in the morning - as they were on every day of the week-long holiday - and picked up at midday.
It is understood the McCanns then took Madeleine and the twins for a picnic lunch and they spent time at the beach and at the pool of the Ocean Club.
At 5.30pm, Mr McCann took part in a social tennis event inside the complex with the other men in the group, all doctors who had first met while working in a hospital together in Leicester. "
Joined: 04 Jul 2007
Posts: 238 Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:45 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well.....this certainly casts new light on the author's last photo hypothesis! Very interesting indeed.
Back to top
theydoitwithmirrors Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Posts: 101 Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 7:49 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I love the way this thread refuses to die, even though some posters go berserk whenever they see it's leapt up 27 pages again
Back to top
firbank1 Joined: 04 Jul 2007
Posts: 238 Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:01 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it's a compelling thread... and deserves to live on, IMHO. BTW, for that matter, so too did the Russell O'Brien Opiate Pharmacology thread...and various other equally compelling additions to this debate, most of which seem to have gone the way of the dodo in recent weeks. I was abroad for a little over a week and now scarcely recognise the place! What I find interesting here, however, is this new information about the afternoon of May 3. The Author always maintained Madeleine wasn't in the creche that afternoon, even Sol suggested otherwise, and yet now it seems the Author was right all along.
Back to top
Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
Forum Index -> The hunt for Maddy All times are GMT
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 31, 32, 33 Next
Page 32 of 33
|
|
Reply
| |
theAuthor: Madeleine - The FORGED LAST PHOTO
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 31, 32, 33
Forum Index -> The hunt for Maddy
View previous topic :: View next topic
Author Message
firbank1 Joined: 04 Jul 2007
Posts: 238 Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 8:22 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ooops slipped
Back to top
MaryPoppins Joined: 06 Jul 2007
Posts: 124 Posted: Thu Sep 20, 2007 9:19 pm Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So do we have any idea what happened to theAuthor? ... Always a good read....
Back to top
waccy Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 417 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:09 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Link I gave earlier to the new Timeline has changed or I got it wrong. The point being, When did anyone other than the parents last see Madeleine alive after being picked up from the morning Creche? Certainly brings the last photo back into the Limelight. Would have thought though, if the T7 had not seen her that afternoon and early evening, they would not be standing up for the McCann's in public. The children in the party were dropped at the Mark Warner creche in the morning - as they were on every day of the week-long holiday - and picked up at midday. It is understood the McCanns then took Madeleine and the twins for a picnic lunch and they spent time at the beach and at the pool of the Ocean Club. At 5.30pm, Mr McCann took part in a social tennis event inside the complex with the other men in the group, all doctors who had first met while working in a hospital together in Leicester. Meanwhile, the children in the group ate their supper at the Paraiso restaurant close to the beach at Praia da Luz with their parents. The McCanns and their children were not present. Mr and Mrs McCann were next seen in the tapas bar, where the group dined each evening during the holiday.
Back to top
Arbiter Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 135 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:17 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's important that this be cleared up. The Find Madeleine website should have all this information about the movements of the McCanns that day but it doesn't. If the Find Madeleine people want to actually find Madeleine then it is their duty to provide as much information to the public as there is avaliable. Why? Because someone may have seen someone hanging around the McCanns at the pool/beach/restaurant/bar. This information needs to be freely available. I'm surprised it isn't on the website. Some helpful photographs of locations wouldn't go amiss either. Information on what happened when that day is all there is, the Find Madeleine people should be making the most of it. If you agree then email them. We all want to find Madeleine and this would definitely help the chances.
Back to top
waccy Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 417 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:29 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Find Madeleine website does not help the viewer in any way to find Madeleine. Anyway the reason I came back to this thread is that after making my last post I came across this, which immediately answered my question aboutthe T7 support. Seems things are unravelling fast. If Madeleine was not seen by anone after morning Creche Kate and Gerry have some serious explaining to do. "Friend who had supper with the couple says that he did not see Maddie during all the afternoon McCanns contradicted One of the people who were between the seven friends who had had supper with Kate and Gerry McCann in the night where Madeleine disappeared disclosed to the 24horas that none of them saw the girl during all the afternoon of day 3 of May. According to this source, that
he in contrast asked for not to be identified, of what they will have said to the policy (to see box) Kate and Gerry will have lunchhed in the beach and later passed the afternoon in the swimming pool of the Ocean Club. “The children of the group had been supper to the restaurant Paradise, but the McCann had not come�? counted the source, adding that only it would come back to reencontrar Kate and Gerry in Tapas, to the supper.
The last photographic register of Maddie indicates that at least until 14h29 it she was alive. One is about a photograph taken off for Kate to the son next to the swimming pool of the Ocean Club.
Thus, the period between 14h29 and 20h40, hour the one that the McCann if had seated in the table supper in the restaurant You cover, in the Ocean Club, is still an incognito for the PJ. Contactadas for the 24horas, sources of the Judiciary one had affirmed that in the height where they had spoken with three of the friends of Kate and Gerry, nominated Rachel Oldfild, Jane Tanner and Russel the' Brien had not been made questions on the previous moments to the supper. The stories that exist are only of the Mccann.
The version of this witness opposes, thus, what he has been notified on the fact of Madeleine until having danced with the father, in the afternoon of the fatídico day, in the restaurant Paradise. “The group went many times there. But I have acerteza of that in day 3 Gerry and Kate had not been there before the supper�?
Moreover, the same source advanced that the McCann “had not locked the door of the apartment that gave for the patio�?and reaffirmed that “one of the windows of the room of Madeleine was opened�?
E more: the source advanced despite, in contrast of what he has been said, Kate did not cry out: “They take-in�?
“This is not truth. It appeared to cry out: `The Madeleine disappeared'�? The witness still pointed out the fact of the mother of Madeleine to have in such a way reacted with “as much horror and desepero�? that it was impossible to have pretending. “Gerry was histérico and started to cry out. The tears ran it for the face�? said.
For everything this, this witness mainly affirmed that it cannot leave to criticize the Portuguese policy, the one that “investigates the case�?
“It considered them suspicious, but nor it heard all the gifts. Of the seven, three had been only heard. Nobody never asked if we found that that desperation was to dissimulate�? affirmed the friends of the couple, adding that “that suffering was impossible
to be false�?" Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Posts: 101 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:32 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote:arbiter] The Find Madeleine website should have all this information about the movements of the McCanns that day but it doesn't [quote] Sorry, off-topic, but there's so much about Madeleine that isn't on the official site www.findmadeleine.com It's weird that the "About Madeleine" section still doesn't mention Kate despite repeated badgering from this forum for months: "Madeleine McCann was born 4 years ago. She has one brother Sean and a sister Amelie. She lives with her family in Rothley, Leicestershire.
Her father comes from Glasgow and has 3 sisters, Patricia, Jacqueline and Phil, and a brother John. Madeleine's Grandmother, Eileen lives in Glasgow. Her other grandparents, Sue and Brian live in Liverpool. " As far as theAuthor's epic "Last Photo" thread goes, it's one of the best in the history of this forum and, with movements on May 3 still unconfirmed beyond all doubt, it's as relevant as ever.
Back to top
Arbiter Joined: 19 Sep 2007
Posts: 135 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:36 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote]The Find Madeleine website does not help the viewer in any way to find Madeleine. [/quote] Sadly I have to agree with that. The Find Madeleine website should be squeezing every last drop out of what is known on that day in case some member of the public saw something unusual. The public needs information to help find Madeleine. The timeline should be very clear and the movements of various people should be published in case someone saw any suspicious people hanging about - anything that might help in the search for Madeleine should be used. If you agree then email them. Joined: 20 Jun 2007
Posts: 417 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Last Photo has now made it into a Daily Mail article, wonder how long before they too start questioning its validity and timing? : Madeleine: The missing six hours that baffle police
Where was Kate between last photo and arrival at tapas bar?
Last updated at 10:01am on 21st September 2007
Police in the McCann investigation are focusing on a six-hour period before Madeleine disappeared which they believe holds the key to the case. According to the Daily Mail's sister paper, the Evening Standard, senior Portuguese police source says they cannot confirm the whereabouts of Kate McCann and her daughter between 2.29pm - when the last photograph of the girl was taken - and 8.30pm when her mother arrived at a tapas bar for dinner. The only witness to Mrs McCann's whereabouts is her husband, police sources said. A senior Policia Judiciaria source said Mrs McCann's afternoon is at the centre of their inquiry. Madeleine and the two-year-old twins, Sean and Amelie, were dropped off that morning at the creche in the Ocean Club apartment complex as they were every day of the week-long holiday. They were picked up at midday and it is understood the McCanns, both named by Portuguese-police as suspects in their daughter's disappearance, then took Madeleine and the twins for a picnic lunch. They spent time at the beach before returning to their hotel. Detectives say that the last picture of Madeleine was taken by her mother at 2.29pm that day as she played by the pool in the apartment complex. According to the Policia Judiciaria source, Mrs McCann has told officers she was at the pool all afternoon while her husband took part in a tennis event inside the complex with friends. The source told the Standard: "Kate said she was at the pool side all afternoon but we are not satisfied with this. "Until now we have no witnesses to confirm that. This is the main focus of our investigation at the moment. Where was Kate between the time she took the picture of Madeleine and the time she went to dinner with her husband in the tapas bar? "This is a crucial six hours that as yet has no explanation. We now believe she could have gone missing during this period." The McCanns and their friends - Matthew and Rachael Oldfield, David and Fiona Payne and her mother Dianne Webster, and Russell O'Brien and his partner Jane Tanner - dined at the tapas bar in the apartment complex each evening during the holiday. On 3 May the McCanns were first at the table, arriving at 8.40pm. They were joined by the Oldfields at 8.45pm with the rest of the party following. Mr McCann made his first check on his children at 9.05pm and Mr Oldfield volunteered to go on behalf of the McCanns at 9.30pm. He entered the apartment through the unlocked patio doors but rather than entering the children's bedroom listened for any noise at the door. Mrs McCann's was the next to check on the children at 10pm. It was then that she raised the alarm. According to the Portuguese police source, none of the friends remember seeing Madeleine since midday that day and none could confirm that Mrs McCann was at the pool for most of the afternoon either. A man carrying a child was spotted by Ms Tanner at about 9.15pm walking away from the apartment and in the direction of the villa where Robert Murat, the only other named suspect in the case, lives with his mother. The McCanns are said to be convinced that Ms Tanner saw Madeleine because she described the pyjamas the girl was wearing before being told the description of those worn by Madeleine and they matched. But the police source said he was unsure of the reliability of the statement. He said: "These are people who spent a lot of time with their friends yet no one saw Madeleine or Kate for much of that day. "We are very doubtful that Madeleine disappeared when the McCanns were at dinner. It is highly likely she was gone at some point during those six hours we know nothing about. As far as we are concerned Gerry and Kate are suspects in this investigation." Previous reports have suggested that the McCanns and their children were with the rest of the party at the Paradiso restaurant at 6pm close to the beach at Praia da Luz. But friends say the family had not joined them that day. Mark Williams-Thomas, a former British detective who worked on the Sarah Payne murder inquiry, said: "The last person to see Madeleine is absolutely vital to this investigation. "If the police are saying the last picture of Madeleine is the last time she was seen, then they have to establish what went on in the hours in between this and when she was reported missing. This could definitely be the focus of the inquiry." He said that if Madeleine was abducted, he believes she would have been snatched after wandering out of the apartment. "I firmly believe she was not taken from the apartment," said Mr Williams-Thomas. "If this is an abduction, she must have woken up, wandered off looking for her parents and was kidnapped by someone who was presented with an easy opportunity to sn@tch a child." Back to top technitalk Joined: 17 Aug 2007
Posts: 446 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:51 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think TheAuthor is in PDL at the moment outside the PJ HQ with a theodolite and a Kodak Brownie camera Breakin NEWS from all angles without a shadow of doubt
Back to top
shuttleBunny Joined: 21 Aug 2007
Posts: 81 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:31 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bump
_________________
AKA ..... Dribbling Loon Ride the wave of destiny, rise above the crest
And believe that whatever happens, happens for the best.
Back to top
theydoitwithmirrors Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Posts: 101 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:50 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It has always been assumed that IF this photo is a fake (and I have an open mind on that), it was to place either Gerry or Maddy (or both) by the pool at 2.29pm on May 3. Or, more innocently, just to generate extra publicity to keep the campaign going. However, we have always been told that Kate took the photo, and we have accepted that as the truth. But, since she is not in the photo, there is no proof of that. So, where was Kate at 2.29 that afternoon - by the pool taking the "last" photo, or somewhere else?
Back to top
bobcat Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 124 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:54 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[quote="theydoitwithmirrors"]It has always been assumed that IF this photo is a fake (and I have an open mind on that), it was to place either Gerry or Maddy (or both) by the pool at 2.29pm on May 3. Or, more innocently, just to generate extra publicity to keep the campaign going. However, we have always been told that Kate took the photo, and we have accepted that as the truth. But, since she is not in the photo, there is no proof of that. So, where was Kate at 2.29 that afternoon - by the pool taking the "last" photo, or somewhere else?[/quote] I have wondered why the other twin was not in the photo, Kate couldn't have been looking after him and taking a photo at the same time! what if he fell in the pool?? Sorry, of course there would have been two abductions that night! Now there's a thought......maybe she drowned in the afternoon.
Back to top
lynn Joined: 14 May 2007
Posts: 3229 Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always thought it odd that the 'last photo' was produced days after Gerry had made a visit to the UK to 'pick up some photographs'.
Back to top
Display posts from previous: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First
Forum Index -> The hunt for Maddy All times are GMT
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 31, 32, 33
Page 33 of 33
|
|
|
First
Previous
2-5 of 5
Next
Last
|
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Return to M F Threads