I was hoping you would be a bit more optamistic - I honestly thought the analytical work you and others on this blog have done would have been replicated by the PJ/OG.
I will watch with interest BBC4 on Wednesday night on how the CPS secure a conviction.
Sorry to disappoint. I can state without fear of contradiction that GA hitherto and OG more recently have kept an eye on progress elsewhere (which gave cause for the appearance of 'Crechedad' IMHO).
As to the CPS, thank you for the 'heads up' regarding BBC4. In the meantime you might find this piece of interest:
'Those Who Can' (12.9.13) at http://www.mccannfiles.com/id436.html
“There is one thing that really surprised me here in Europe. It’s the fact that people here think Japan is a very democratic and free country.” (Mako Oshidori)
“A police officer delivers flowers to the home of Gerry and Kate McCann on September 10, 2007 in Rothley, England. The McCanns returned from Portugal yesterday after local police questioned them and named them as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, 4, who vanished from their holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal several months ago. Portugal’s public prosecutor is due to review police papers detailing the Madeleine McCann inquiry.”
"We tried to find a picture of Madeleine Kate checked her camera but these were mainly of her at home or not such a clear picture. We found a picture of Madeleine but we couldn’t print it off. Cat or one of the nannies said that they had a printer and took the camera away to get some photos copied. A copy of the photo was given directly to the Police, someone from the Mark Warner staff made a poster - but I do not know who that was."
Kate McCann in 'madeleine':
Tuesday 1 May:
I ran back to our apartment for my camera to record the occasion. One of my photographs is known around the world now: a smiling Madeleine clutching armfuls of tennis balls.
It jumps off the page and grabs you by the whatever? And such a discrepancy under normal circumstances would I think, get you an invitation to the local nick.
A copy of the photo was given directly to the Police, someone from the Mark Warner staff made a poster - but I do not know who that was."
Oddly enough, my email yesterday evening to Martin.
It was this I was looking for, I’m sure there will plenty more somewhere.
Sometime between 0.30 and 1 am Gerry asks for the priest from the Luz parish to be called for him – but the Ocean Club staff members refused, given the time it was. (sol 18/8)
ca. 2.00 am Antonio Duarte, a commander for the GNR in Lagos, got the mysterious pictures. Four equal images, in sets of two, printed in photographic paper, 15,3 cm x 10,3 cm. The military declared to the PJ that he got the pics at 2 am on the 4th of May – four hours after the disappearance was reported. Antonio Duarte said he got the pictures when he was sitting in a vehicle when trying to get identification data of the McCanns, but that he cannot recall who gave him the pics.
Gerry declared that he was not the one that had given the pics to the GNR. But the dossier contains also declarations from Sílvia Baptista, responsible for the Ocean Club who says she saw the father of Madeleine give the pics, on a poster-type paper to one of the militaries of the GNR. "They were practically all similar" said Baptista. The PJ made a research of the printers available in Luz, but the sort of paper the pics of Maddie were printed on, could not be found anywhere. Nelson Costa, one of the militaries in the GNR who was called on the night of 3 May, was perplex. He told the PJ he saw several pictures of Maddie, some A4 size and others with the size of a poster, that 'couldn't have been made' in the reception of the Ocean Club. (Link)
PJ report says that the pictures were printed by nanny Amy Tierney.
Pictures were printed on a personal printer from a British staff member of Ocean Club. It was Russell O'Brien who brought a memory card and that member of staff brought the printer from her room. PJ asked for the printer, but she said her boyfriend took it with him to France.(Paulo Reis)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id121.html
And from today's notes.
Martin
I picked up on this last night from the link I sent you. I had a bit of a ‘yer wot?’ moment.
He told the PJ he saw several pictures of Maddie, some A4 size and others with the size of a poster, that 'couldn't have been made' in the reception of the Ocean Club.
The implication being the ‘posters’ were larger than A4.
But from your link, a totally different interpretation.
As concerns the photos of the child, he says that he only saw what he calls the originals, poster type 10 x 15 cm on photographic paper. He did not see any other type of photos. Upon being shown a sample, he recognises it as being identical.
Much lost in translation I fancy
---------------------------------------
I don't believe one word of the McCann's narrative regarding who and when and how the photo's were produced.
Thanks for that. Another great 'find' (the author clearly got there ahead of me http://www.mccannfiles.com/id436.html)
"The same clothes?"
Certainly looks that way. Amelie was also bequeathed 'Maddie's Jammies'.
Rhetorical question: What mother would pass ownership of one of their children's clothing to another if the true owner were only temporarily absent (or at least expected to return)?
Just as interesting is how a photo can originate in the UK, having been taken in Portugal and yet not be among contemporary Portuguese images?
I would say so, unless they were bought bigger in order that the tot could grow into them.
The same clothes. Indicative not definitive.
But open the thread, top right. What's with Merkle and her "hand jive"? Most odd, just an affliction or what?
Just as interesting is how a photo can originate in the UK, having been taken in Portugal and yet not be among contemporary Portuguese images?
Interesting yes, but it needs a source, otherwise . . . NWAW
Or not quite so cryptic . . . http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/TEiYu05xrJI/AAAAAAAAcrA/sOJd9uBO7Ic/s1600/jimmy's_little_rubber_stamp.jpg
And further on in the thread this:
Memories of a lost daughter
Kate McCann speaking last Wednesday about how the abduction of Madeleine has affected her and her memories of her daughter. Cuddle Cat
"I was desperately hoping that Madeleine would be back before the cat got washed. In the end Cuddle Cat smelt of suntan lotion and everything. I forgot what colour it was. "It was special to Madeleine, she took it to bed every night. If she was upset or tired she had Cuddle Cat. It was special to her so it's special to me.
Talking about the night she went missing, she said: "I can't remember when I picked Cuddle Cat up. I don't think I did touch Cuddle Cat. I knew straight away a crime had been committed, we had no doubt about that.
"I look back sometimes and think 'you didn't do that badly.' We were very conscious of not touching things.
"I can't actually remember when I collected Cuddle Cat."
Kate dear, do me a personal, just fuck right off. Pray pardon.
It’s the same short (white stripe on the side) but perhaps they both had one. Did Kate ever mention her daughters’ same clothes thing except for the Eeyore pyjamas? I’m only aware of her preoccupation with Madeleine’s clothes, brands included.
Regarding your rhetorical question, same thought here.
Interesting indeed if it’s true that this photo is not on the list of photos the PJ took from their cameras.
4078 ”Did a routine develop then? Well it (Tapas dining) must have done I suppose, in the fact that it being booked at the same time every day.”
Reply ”Well yes I mean this is, this is why I think Madeleine was taken because we were, we were targeted from an early, early point I think, you know, we were doing the same thing everyday, every night, same routine.”
"WE" were 'TARGETED' early?
I get the impression from the close of RDH's final episode, that booking the tapas restaurant had less to do with mutual convenience(baby minding during restaurant hours was in fact FREE OF CHARGE) and more to do with setting up a situation which could invite the 'abduction'.
The origin of the tennis photo is also questioned here (you probably know already). The specifics don't convince me as being anything definitive. That said, red-green courts are the norm, so not impossible.
General point: Did "X" press the shutter on this one, or was it "Y" running back for the camera? It is as though we're left asking "did you shutdown the computer last night...or was it me?" Madeleine, as always, is either "missing" or reduced to being a "doll". We're expected to believe that there could be any "confusion" about an interaction with a little girl (recently "abducted") - a little daughter - a little friend - that sustains such obvious points of recall as: what did Madeleine say to you? what did you (the photographer) reply? Was this an easy photo to snap? Did Madeleine manage to hang on to those tennis balls? Did she run excitedly onto the court when a match was playing? etc. We are simply left with a time, a place, how she looked, and what she was wearing.
Even the nanny (Cat Baker), who apparently had only three children in her care that Thursday afternoon, did not state categorically that she accompanied MADELEINE to High Tea toward 5.00 p.m., when the focus of the questions being put to her was on that one missing child specifically. In fact she didn't mention High Tea at all until the occasion of her Rogatory interview, which followed her stop-over with the McCanns at their home. Memory does not improve with time.
RDH may have wandered 'off piste' here and there, but there are genuine grounds for not accepting the McCanns' (and others') incongruous stories uncritically.
Madeleine, as always, is either "missing" or reduced to being a "doll".
A very good account of the situation (she finds herself in).
Icon
May 3, 2008
"Madeleine does seem to have become iconic of missing children," Kate McCann told CNN in an interview as the couple launched a fresh appeal for information about Madeleine's whereabouts and vowed never to give up the search until she is found.
and
"We are interested in making a world safer for children," Gerry McCann said. "This [introduction European Child Rescue Alert] is something that could be implemented and it will save lives."
Whooshed while reading: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/02/mccann.year/
Saved Feb 25, 2016 http://web.archive.org/web/20160225111031/http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/02/mccann.year/
Kate McCann, a GP, and her husband, Gerry, a heart specialist, had left the toddler – dressed only in white pyjamas – sleeping with her two-year-old twin brother and sister.
4078 ”And you said that you think that because of your routine was going to Tapas every night that you’d been targeted, if you like, early on.”
Reply ”Definitely, definitely.”
4078 ”Was there anything about Madeleine, from what you knew of her that would lead somebody to target her in particular?”
Reply ”Well she was a lovely little girl, you know, err very petite, err quite a striking girl, and I don’t, I mean, well she was blonde, or fair haired, but it may have been also that whether the fact the end apartment was perhaps more accessible than any of the others. I really don’t know but I do think she was definitely targeted and I think err at the kids club, I think sometimes the children, the older children, were taken on outings to err I think they went to a beach so again she could have been watched, pinpointed then, err where they had high tea was on a raised area, it wasn’t in the Tapas restaurant it was another bit that was higher up, beside a wall which again they could be watched, the children could be seen from err beyond this, this wall.”
(...)
4078 “The, was there anything else you wanted to say?”
Reply “Well other than the fact that she was definitely targeted and I think we made it easy for them by doing the same thing everyday, every night.”
It's like she's reading off a script. Did someone give her the idea? She seems like a trusting person. M
I have said before on occasion, Dianne Webster knew diddly squat when interviewed by the PJ, but she was right on script by the time of her rogatory.
.. . .. Concerning the day yesterday, she went to the beach with the children, her son-in-law and her daughter. They arrived there at around 3.45pm and left at around 6.15pm to go to the tennis courts where she stayed until 7pm. The informant then went to the apartment with the small children and ten minutes later, her son-in-law, David, joined them. With her son-in-law's help, they bathed the children.
. . . . During this holiday, she has noticed nothing unusual or which could be linked to the investigation.
4078 ”But Wednesday stands out to you because you know the weather wasn’t very good?”
Reply ”Wednesday I remember because it was raining in the morning, we thought oh no tennis, you know, but we did have the tennis later on because I remember err we were waiting for the courts to dry.”
. . . . 4078 ”And you said that you think that because of your routine was going to Tapas every night that you’d been targeted, if you like, early on.”
Reply ”Definitely, definitely.”
. . . . 4078 ”Was there anything about Madeleine, from what you knew of her that would lead somebody to target her in particular?”
Reply ”Well she was a lovely little girl, you know, err very petite, err quite a striking girl, and I don’t, I mean, well she was blonde, or fair haired, but it may have been also that whether the fact the end apartment was perhaps more accessible than any of the others. I really don’t know but I do think she was definitely targeted and I think err at the kids club, I think sometimes the children, the older children, were taken on outings to err I think they went to a beach so again she could have been watched, pinpointed then, err where they had high tea was on a raised area, it wasn’t in the Tapas restaurant it was another bit that was higher up, beside a wall which again they could be watched, the children could be seen from err beyond this, this wall.”
A possible maybe perhaps?
Thursday
. . . 4078 ”Who else was there around that time?”
Reply ”Who else? Well it was, it was all of us err apart from Kate and Gerry and their children, yeah we were all there . . .
[Martin previously] And bugger me if we haven't been told by Kate about a note (in Portuguese, obviously) written inside a staff notebook, which not only announced their Tapas booking intentions, but explained that they wanted to leave the kids unattended.
We are getting into some serious bridge selling here.
The notebook has, of course, not since materialised in any evidential form.
"So these are actually apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine's doesn't have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."
"To be honest, I don't actually think that is the case. I think that is a very small minority of people that are criticising us.
"I have never heard before that anyone considers us suspects in this. The Portuguese police certainly don't," her husband added, before insisting "there is absolutely no way Kate and I are involved in this abduction."
A bit of mileage still left in this one Chuck, along with a few screenshots from the clip.
“Armed with notebook, pen and dated photographs, I would be challenging myself to piece together as comprehensive an outline of the sequence of events as I could.” (Kate McCann in 'Madeleine')
'dated photographs' - all five of them.
Unless of course she was also referring to her pictures of Lagos Marina and a pair of pyjamas!
The Hubbards Haynes, an Anglican priest who was about to take up a new post as senior chaplain for the Algarve Anglican Church, and Susan, a midwife arrived in Praia de Luz three days after Madeleine's disappearance.
(...)
"It wasn't until months later, when I saw really why God had brought us here, that I was awestruck that he confirmed we were to be here before we even set foot in our town of Praia de Luz," she says. "For me, he confirmed it on the plane ... the fact that there was a child missing here gave us our first mission before we even set foot in the place."
(...)
"It was pretty clear that He was using us, of the same age [as the McCanns] and with small children and Susan speaking Portuguese … and being able to relate to them in a tiny way, to lead them in prayer and just to walk with them," he said.
Police sources said criminal instructing judge Pedro Miguel dos Anjos Frias is drawing up papers approving the request which are expected to be passed to Leicestershire police tommorrow.
Mr McCann took his laptop back to the UK at the weekend and it is understood it will be analysed by officers in the UK.
The parish priest also gave the McCanns the keys to the church so that they could pray there alone in the evenings. It was while they were doing this early in the first week that Mr McCann had an extraordinary experience.
"When I was praying I started thinking of all the things that were happening. There were lots and lots of ideas in my head and how we could make things better and I was really feeling very down and not sure which way to proceed. I had this mental image of being in a tunnel and instead of the light at the end of the tunnel being extremely narrow and a distant spot, the light opened up and the tunnel got wider and wider and went in many different directions. I talked to you [Kate] about it and said, ‘I am not prepared to pursue one path. We are going to do everything in our power to influence things.'
"It was almost like something - I am not saying it was the Holy Spirit - came into me and gave me that image. That is when I really felt I had a clear path."
Was it a religious experience?
"I can't say it was a vision because I am not clear what a vision is but I had a mental image and it certainly helped me decide. I became a man possessed that night. The next day I was up at dawn, making phone calls."
"On Monday [7 May], Gerry became more confused regarding what to do and how to do it. Monday morning, Fiona Payne knocked on our door and told us of a search, organised by some residents and tourists. We were transported with about 10 other people in a mini bus. We spent the morning searching the terrain and fields of difficult access near the resort. I cannot recite precisely the locale.
There was no police involvement in this search. Around 12h00 I received a telephone from Kate asking if Nicky and I could take care of the twins while they attended a session with the media asking for help and had just returned to the resort. Between us both, we watched the twins that afternoon. That night, a group of local women and children, accompanied by the church's priest arrived at the apartment and prayed the rosary. It was at this time that Kate was given access to the church and Gerry was loaned a lap-top with access to the internet.
"His ‘vision’- I don’t know what else to call it – in that beautiful little church had a huge impact on Gerry. It was this experience that laid the foundations or our organized campaign to find our daughter.
From the minute he got up the next morning [9 May], Gerry was on a mission. Among the first people he spoke to was the ambassador, John Buck. The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, also happened to call him. He pleaded with them both to try to improve the way the investigation and the search were being handled. We needed it to be far better than this, he told them. They knew that, too, I’m sure.
“Is the mother of Madeleine McCann guilty of her daughter’s death?” in the headline.
“Did her parents kill her or was she abducted while her parents were dining with friends?” in the introduction.
For the rest it’s just another story of a mother and ‘leaving kids alone’, which she herself has done while her children were playing outside. It’s written in response to Katie Hopkins’ article. M
McCann on Monday afternoon laid down the gauntlet to prime minister David Cameron, calling on him to deliver the promise he made during and after the Leveson inquiry to "protect the people who have been thrown to the wolves as we were".
Classic images of Near Death Experience are not only documented in the arts (Bosch in link) and psychology (tunnels being the classic NDE image). They are also known to medical research, notably anaesthesia -
...research...has revealed how the effects of an NDE can be induced by ketamine...
The symbolism of "emerging from a tunnel" is particularly hard to ignore given the context of a church and the "absence" of a first child (birth/death etc). There are many ways that a "way forward" might be symbolised. It just so happens that the McCanns chose(?) one that is historically associated with death.
No surprise then that the PJ cannot tell the difference between a boat and a pair of trousers. Or is the last photograph here some kind of unique insignia - that of Vasco da Pyjama perhaps?
Martin, let me deal publicly with the first part of your email. Only my bold this time.
INFORMATION FROM THE FAMILY
I spoke to Kate McCann on Tuesday 8th of May 07. She told me that a friend of her Aunt & Uncle from Leicester had a friend that had a strong vision that Madeleine was on a boat with a man in the Marina in Lagos.
This person arrived in Portugal and has spoke to Kate. They have visited the Marina and identified the boat as "SHEARWATER". They saw a man on the boat but this was not the same man that she had in her vision.
. . . a couple of undated lines penned by (FLO) Dectective Constable Markley of Leicester plod
I don't know about anybody else, but what is writ there takes my breath away.
A police detective, albeit a lowly one, accepting into the case photo's based on a vision by someone connected to the McCanns. Not only that, the vessel, one of possible hundreds(?) has been specifically identified and named.
Now if that don't take your breath away, Leicester plod then proceed to inundate the PJ with a portfolio of boat pics, seemingly without embarrassment.
Little wonder Amaral accused LP of taking the piss.
I [Nackley?] spoke with Kate today [8 May] and she has given me photographs of the boat. She has also given me a photograph of a man who had been on the boat. This is not the man that the woman had in her vision.
“Photographs of the boat, a photograph of a man who had been on the boat” and a photograph of the Eeyore pyjamas?
Based on my theory (just a theory) that the McCanns changed the pyjamas/clothes Madeleine was wearing into the Eeyore pyjamas after Tanner’s sighting, I wonder who made that photo of Eeyore’s after 3 May?
"I wonder who made that photo of Eeyore’s after 3 May?"
That's just the point. I don't think anyone took those photos (there is more than one version) after 3 May at all, but beforehand.
Kate McCann: "I haven't been able to use the camera since I took that last photograph of her."
When did she say the last photo was taken again? The Thursday afternoon wasn't it?
So if I'm right about this, how did she know a picture of her daughter's pyjamas would come in handy later?
Remember that sentence you quoted up-thread (@07:54):
"So these are actually apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine's doesn't have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."
The pyjamas couldn't have come back for a photo-shoot if they'd been abducted.
I understand the pyjamas were purchased from M&S - I cannot see M&S making two tops exactly the same but one with the slight change of a button on the back. They would normally have different bottoms ie patterned or plain for mix and match but to attach a button on the back of a top?
"I understand the pyjamas were purchased from M&S"
In 2006. It's a long time since I visited M&S, but I don't think Eeyore was the only set they sold that had a 'Disney' theme.
The pair eventually supplied on request to the PJ had a plain t-shirt top (no button - see the forensic photos in the files), as did the stock photo published by the Algarve Resident on 8 May - but this was 2007 don't forget. In the apparel trade, suppliers/specifications can and do vary over time.
To which McCann replied "Of course you do!" (not).
When did GM say that?
01.03.16 @10:50
A constraint that must necessarily apply to photographs of Amelie McCann's pyjamas, hence:
Pyjamas photographed before late Thursday afternoon.
01.03.16 @14:26
'Was it KM who took the pyjamas picture?'
They're her daughter Amelie's (according to her), the pair they took with them around Europe.
01.03.16 @14:35
"So these are actually apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine's doesn't have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."
The pyjamas couldn't have come back for a photo-shoot if they'd been abducted.
It follows from the above that the photograph at your link (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS_VISION.htm) is of Amelie McCann's pyjamas and these pyjamas “the pair they took with them around Europe” (they had “Amelie McCann's pyjamas” in their possession to take a picture of).
It seems that unless KM is on the record as having said that she herself had taken the picture at your link, the picture’s provenance as well as the creation date must remain uncertain.
"It seems that unless KM is on the record as having said that she herself had taken the picture at your link, the picture’s provenance as well as the creation date must remain uncertain."
About as uncertain as 'cadaverine detected in 5A + missing child = ?' I would suggest.
Given their performances over the past decade KM's being 'on the record' over anything is scarcely a pre-requisite for determining the truth of things.
It matters not a jot whether one describes these items of clothing as Madeleine's or Amelie's (Kate McCann is at least 'on the record' as attributing them to her younger daughter, which means they were in the family's possession from the outset and in time to feature in a variety of photographs within the week).
The black and white version we see archived alongside the photographs from Lagos Marina represents 'Information from the Family', as per the covering note of DC Markley (Leicester Police).
James Murray (Sunday Express) contends that Kate took the marina photos. Considering what they actually portray I would not disagree. And since Gerry McCann has also told us "Kate usually takes the photographs" I am inclined, on balance to attribute to her the photography of her own daughter's clothing.
Although not an expression of absolute certainty it is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' I think, given that alternative candidates can be ruled out.
Btw. Gerry McCann did NOT say what I attributed to him as the obvious reply. (I thought I'd negated it in brackets?)
The pyjamas being sent are 'equal' in make, model, size, colours and designs as well as presumably the texture, to those the little girl was wearing at the time of her disappearance. The article sent serves for eventual comparisons with fibres collected by the competent officers of the Police Scientific Lab, within the scope of the current investigation.
To quote the Duke of Wellington: "I've had this ground in my pocket" (literally for years I might add)
And GA: "I know more - much more
As for this:
"The pyjamas being sent are 'equal' in make, model, size, colours and designs as well as presumably the texture, to those the little girl was wearing at the time of her disappearance. The article sent serves for eventual comparisons with fibres collected by the competent officers of the Police Scientific Lab, within the scope of the current investigation."
'equal etc. presumably in texture' smacks of naivety unfortunately.
As soon as we recognise that the T-shirt photographed by the PJ (as a record of their forensic examination) is not EXACTLY the same as that represented in all those 'official photographs', we must raise such questions as 'origin of manufacture', 'fibre type', even 'batch no.', to be sure of answering those forensic questions with absolute certainty (to quote 'Anonymous' upstream).
Unless of course one accepts, uncritically, Kate McCann's suggestion that there were at least two pairs of Eeyore pyjamas in PdL that week, belonging to each of her two girls (as if!).
Last Updated: Tuesday, 8 May 2007, 16:33 GMT 17:33 UK
photo pyjamas A set of pyjamas identical to the ones Madeleine was wearing. (without the button on the back)
Why were the McCanns showing Amelie’s Eeyore pyjamas top (with the button) and not the one Madeleine allegedly wore? Can I presume there was an identical one, as shown in the picture?
Apart from that, why did they drag Amelie into their pyjamas show? It's totally unnecessary and it seems almost cruel. M
To quote the Duke of Wellington: “I mistrust the judgement of every man in a case in which his own wishes are concerned.”
01.03.16 @16:31
“About as uncertain as 'cadaverine detected in 5A + missing child = ?' I would suggest.”
The relevance of your comparison is dubious to say the least. I take it you are implying that once a liar, always a liar. There are grounds to argue that the couple in question do tell the truth, occasionally.
The scent of cadaverine was detected in 5A, which by itself was not evidence of cadaverine being present but a pointer to where cadaverine could have been present. No cadaverine has yet been discovered in 5A if I remember correctly.
“Given their performances over the past decade KM's being 'on the record' over anything is scarcely a pre-requisite for determining the truth of things.”
Very much so. Nevertheless, KM’s being on the record is a pre-requisite for determining the untruth “of things”.
“It matters not a jot whether one describes these items of clothing as Madeleine's or Amelie's (Kate McCann is at least 'on the record' as attributing them to her younger daughter, which means they were in the family's possession from the outset and in time to feature in a variety of photographs within the week).
The black and white version we see archived alongside the photographs from Lagos Marina represents 'Information from the Family', as per the covering note of DC Markley (Leicester Police).
James Murray (Sunday Express) contends that Kate took the marina photos. Considering what they actually portray I would not disagree. And since Gerry McCann has also told us "Kate usually takes the photographs" I am inclined, on balance to attribute to her the photography of her own daughter's clothing.”
Agreed. The relevance to your instant argument of the preceding quote is unclear however. "Kate usually takes the photographs" = Kate does not always take the photographs.
Your inclination, justified in my opinion, in this instance is no substitute for facts and hence is capable of being detrimental to your general stand (with which I agree). I guess that in a court of law one would be unable to defend your position with regard to the above if one argued as you are doing in this instance.
“Btw. Gerry McCann did NOT say what I attributed to him as the obvious reply. (I thought I'd negated it in brackets?)”
I am at fault having misunderstood you. Your use of quotation marks confused me and your bracketed negation in postposition I understood as indicating your attitude towards GM’s answer.
01.03.16 @17:34
“As soon as we recognise that the T-shirt photographed by the PJ (as a record of their forensic examination) is not EXACTLY the same as that represented in all those 'official photographs', we must raise such questions as 'origin of manufacture', 'fibre type', even 'batch no.', to be sure of answering those forensic questions with absolute certainty…”
Absolutely: “…such questions…” raise we must “… to be sure of answering those forensic questions with…certainty…” beyond reasonable doubt.
“…(to quote 'Anonymous' upstream).”?
In this context we are dealing with certainty beyond reasonable doubt, which is not the same as absolute certainty (putting aside the subtleties of the meaning and use of ‘certainty’).
Perhaps Agnos would be kind enough to adjudicate.
I was under the impression that you’d considered details important and that’s why I started all this.
It seems that the number of comments on this thread has changed dramatically: about one hundred yesterday, about seventy today. Are you able to tell me whether all the comments are still accessible?
Perhaps Agnos would be kind enough to adjudicate. I was under the impression that you’d considered details important and that’s why I started all this.
I'm in no position to adjudicate. There are people commenting here (yourself included) whose knowledge of detail outstrips my own by some margin. I can only speak from my own perspective.
I think you are right to insist upon the primacy of detail and established "facts" as the foundation of any "theory." And to be challenged upon that basis is what enables us all to move forward.
However, what is also at stake here is the "creative" aspect of coming to a consistent understanding that might align certain details that might previously have been considered unimportant, disconnected, or completely overlooked. The "leap" of conjecture is sometimes necessary and productive. Martin has said exactly this elsewhere. The "what if" - "it seems likely" - "proceeding as though..." of any discussion is what can lead to the most valued asset of a "new fact". Knowledge is always a work in progress.
I accept that there is an ethical dimension to this. These are people that we are discussing, and not abstract concepts. It clearly necessitates a special type of care (Murat etc.)!
If this case were ever to be presented in court, then yes, what we would see from the prosecution would be the smooth transition of facts and details that lead inexorably (they would hope) to only one conclusion. But the process of arriving at such facts and details would certainly not be smooth. Conjectures would circulate (stand and fall) until a determination could be reached!
These are just my impressions. To be challenged on detail is always welcome to me, and perhaps you will stick around to see where things go.
I find this scrolling comment format a less than ideal vehicle for elaborate discussion. Pardon me if I endeavour to be as concise as possible therefore.
“To quote the Duke of Wellington: ‘I mistrust the judgement of every man in a case in which his own wishes are concerned.’”
Your prerogative entirely.
'About as uncertain as 'cadaverine detected in 5A + missing child = ?' I would suggest.'
“The relevance of your comparison is dubious to say the least. I take it you are implying that once a liar, always a liar. There are grounds to argue that the couple in question do tell the truth, occasionally."
No doubt. When it suits them.
"'The scent of cadaverine was detected in 5A', which by itself was not evidence of cadaverine being present but a pointer to where cadaverine could have been present. No cadaverine has yet been discovered in 5A if I remember correctly."
“I was under the impression that you’d considered details important”
Indeed I do, but I am not prepared to venture into discussion of the microscopic. This is not a court of law and I am not a forensic scientist.
The point I wished to make is that oftentimes in life (as well as in court btw) we are required to ‘put two and two together’, even when obliged to consider instances of 2+x=4, when no one is ‘on record’ as quantifying x in the first instance.
"'Kate usually takes the photographs' = Kate does not always take the photographs."
"Your inclination, justified in my opinion, in this instance is no substitute for facts and hence is capable of being detrimental to your general stand (with which I agree). I guess that in a court of law one would be unable to defend your position with regard to the above if one argued as you are doing in this instance."
Perhaps not. It is anybody’s guess, if it comes to that (i.e., guesswork). But, again, we are neither counsel for the prosecution nor the defence. Added to which, the point being discussed is but one of several 'lines of evidence', if you will, the totality of which would needs be assessed as a whole (‘weight of evidence’ and all that).
Kate may not have taken all the photographs, but in this particular instance, and following Gerry McCann’s favoured ‘rule out method’, alternative candidates may be discounted, leaving Kate and her own ‘not after 3 May’ statement somewhat high and dry.
I am not inviting you to take this on trust necessarily (‘old Ironsides’ probably would not), but should you be in any doubt, you are perfectly welcome to re-invent the wheel and investigate whether others might have been responsible for these photographs, as I have done.
There remains one question which I don’t believe you’ve asked so far, and that is: ‘How can I be sure the black and white picture of pyjamas represents ‘Amelie’s’, as identified by Kate McCann?
As M (13.33) has quite recently pointed out, the b&w picture is identical to the colour version incorporated in the PJ circular. That is not quite how I arrived at the conclusion, but this being a public arena M’s link must suffice for the time being.
The PJ's forensic photos were taken in late Summer (it took a while for the clothing to arrive from M&S UK - all their Portuguese branches had been closed prior to the McCanns' arrival on the Algarve)
So no, the clothes would not have arrived with the McCanns during the first seven days. They actually showed their pyjama pic to the press on 7 May - three days before the PJ 'released' it. Nor are the pyjamas in their picture identical to those photographed by the PJ or those represented in the M&S stock photo published by the Algarve Resident (8 May).
I think your subsequent link to the PJ 'flyer', and reference therein to Amelie's pyjamas, makes the direction of information flow perfectly clear, don't you?
Correction to above (15:35) - my mistake - the PJ release does not refer to the pyjamas as 'Amelie's' (you do - naughty!).
But never mind, they ARE the same pyjamas that travelled to Europe (trust me - even though the Duke of Wellington et al might not).
Btw. I didn't just drop on this idea because of a black and white picture. The evidence is all in glorious technicolour and has been staring everyone in the face since week 1.
Dr Roberts I have read the posts on this thread twice but am slightly confused as to what the outcome is - would it be possible to do a quick synopsis? thank you in advance!
I don't think anyone should expect a consequence from such an exchange as takes place on a blog such as this (except perhaps for one or other party to get upset and take their toys home).
I jest, but I have no idea who you are, why you should need a quick synopsis, or indeed what it is you require a synopsis of.
I don't mean to be rude, but I am not about to summarise or 'bag up' an argument, which could lead to making certain others' tasks easier.
"Why were the McCanns showing Amelie’s Eeyore pyjamas top (with the button) and not the one Madeleine allegedly wore? Can I presume there was an identical one, as shown in the picture?
"Apart from that, why did they drag Amelie into their pyjamas show? It's totally unnecessary and it seems almost cruel."
Sorry. I seem to have overlooked these questions. I think they can both be resolved with reference to the second of them, i.e. 'Why drag Amelie into the show?'
If there were only one pair to begin with, they clearly could not have been returned after 'the abduction'. But with 'stills' already in the can, declaring 'Maddie's jammies' to be 'Amelie's' explains how it was possible to release the images at all.
Had those pyjamas come from anywhere outside PdL it would have had to be the UK. But Gerry did not make his first trip home until 21 May. Which tells us that they were in PdL from the outset.
Once identified as Amelie's though, they could not also have been Madeleine's, so hers are described as a little bigger and NOT having a button-up top.
Instinct tells me the button aspect has less to do with garment size and more to do with design and supplier.
Pre-2006 (the year when the pyjamas were purchased) the tops incorporated a button. The design was probably amended to a simple t-shirt (to save money) some time thereafter.
As regards children's pyjamas in general, the difference between the very early age groups is expressed almost entirely in the trousers (legs being the limbs that grow the quickest it would seem). The tops are virtually the same size for infants of 2 - 4 or thereabouts.
BBC: "Madeleine was wearing pink Eeyore pyjamas when she disappeared" (photo of the ‘button’ ones)
Why, on May 10, change the photo into 'Amelie’s' pyjamas if the photo on May 8 reflects the identical ones, the pyjamas Madeleine was wearing?
Regarding the photo on May 8 (Algarve Resident), we have to consider where it and the BBC photograph came from. In the case of the AR (because they told us) and the BBC (most likely) it was M&S. Later on the retailer sent a pair of (no button) pyjamas to the PJ, whose photographs inevitably look similar. And yet the 'official photograph' they put out on 10 May does not?
Never mind whose name you give them - the clothes are different, hence the 'official' picture was not produced by the PJ (who would not have undertaken the same photography twice in any case).
"We passed on the accurate details of Madeleine's pyjamas, at the family's request, correcting the police's initial description.
"Not that accurate judging by the accompanying photo on May 10."
All the media cared about was the pink 'Eeyore' aspect to the things. That was sufficient to label them identical when, as you rightly observe, they were not. It was the McCanns who were desperate to feed the 'correct description' to the media ('Eeeyore' versus plain white). The police had not in fact given ANY description to the media beforehand - the specifics were only understood by searchers on the ground on Thursday night/Friday morning.
My contention is that the 'official photograph' emerged via the McCanns, not the PJ. The McCanns bought their pyjamas a year earlier. Those pyjamas had a button and were photographed - with a button. They only became 'Amelie's' with Kate McCann's pre-emptive explanation on Crimewatch ("These are Amelie's, they're a little bit smaller"), the trousers draped in such a way as to foreshorten perspective, and afterwards at an interview inside the (Dutch?) Hilton, where she goes into quite unnecessary detail about Madeleine's t-shirt being bigger and not having a button (as if it mattered).
Fundamentally,in light of Anonymous yesterday (16:33 - who wanted a synopsis of goodness knows what):
If Kate McCann took the official photograph of Madeleine's pyjamas, but could not bear to use her camera after she had taken that last photograph, what does that tell you?
You might be even further surprised if I suggest to you that the right images, viewed in the right way, contain hints here and there of where they were taken, approximately when, and by whom - even the the relative position of the photographer at the time!
'Hints', I hasten to add, not 'proof' - but there is such a concept as 'circumstantial evidence' is there not?
Thanks for your earlier intervention btw. I do believe you 'get it'.
I saw Dylan performing live at the time of ‘Infidels’, though it must have been before Orianthi was born . It was the best and most memorable performance I’ve ever been to, and I've been to more than a few.
Agnos is special. I sign to that, and I think you do.
That sounds fascinating. And when we consider the resources made available to OG it becomes ever more curious that we are still here.
I wonder whether anon@(Iron Duke) was touching upon this broader question of what can be achieved by any of this. Perhaps all of "us" have asked the same. My only response would be to say that the question of Madeleine's disappearance may never be resolved. A consensus of opinion might even be too much to hope for. But if the "abduction thesis" is that which is to be countered, then at least one resource open to "us" is to keep asking, and to keep trying to extend the relevance of the question: then what did happen? It is sad to think that that question should require any justification in the asking - and this is nine years on.
You are far too kind! I have a friend who spent a few years in the US studying art. He still says that Dylan's harmonica is the height of American culture! Just one "wail" is enough! I wouldn't argue.
Here comes the story of the Hurricane The man the authorities came to blame For somethin’ that he never done Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been The champion of the world
Regarding ‘dump’ and Himself’s other blogs, I’ll quote Agnos (does he know he has a fan club?): Knowledge is always a work in progress.
I can only assume that you are following convention in saying the above, but I appreciate your intent very much. I hope you would agree that what is important is not that which is said, but that which is done, and it’s your ’doing’ I’ve pointed at in my message to Maren.
Kindness has no measure, in its ‘suchness’ or as one’s attitude towards another. This is where I’m at. Where you a sailor, the blind might wish to be sailors too.
“Kind and mysterious” (rtgr, bless her/him) remark is reaching the tip of my tongue. And the Wyatt’s lines are echoing in my mind. And certain rules, even when broken, remain golden.
“I have a friend who spent a few years in the US studying art. He still says that Dylan's harmonica is the height of American culture! Just one "wail" is enough! I wouldn't argue.”
Would you be so kind as to rephrase the penultimate sentence to avoid (my) misunderstanding, or alternatively, indicate whether or not it is intended as a compliment. I know you know what you meant and I know you will know what I mean.
Please be assured that I read all posts carefully if I manage to get to them before they are made to disappear “with a flick of the wrist”.
Please do not hesitate to tell me if anything I say is unclear.
The penultimate sentence is indeed a compliment. Having absorbed all that he could of American culture/spirit (the great and the good), the artist-writer in question could say no more than - just listen to Dylan! i.e. He is the essence, of what might be found.
Well don't know which one is worse Doing your own thing or just being cool Well don't know which one is worse Doing your own thing or just being cool You remember only about the brass ring You forget all about the golden rule.
Quite coincidently I’ve just obliquely referred to the golden rule in my 16:12 post to Agnos.
Referring to a ‘dump’ rather playfully, I was not thinking of Himself. I was thinking of you, the lyrics of the song’s, and the Blog’s Dump. It also happens that I also think of these lyrics when I occasionally visit the local rubbish dump as well as on other occasions. I’ve certainly meant no disrespect.
For clarity, ‘It takes a sailor to see a sailor’ is the saying I had in mind in said post. I hope I had not just made it up myself.
‘All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy’ is another saying, definitely extant.
If you'd like to travel a little further, why are 'Wet t-shirt' competitions popular with boys? (The answer has to do with 'clinging')
Bearing in mind that shadows only result when something obstructs the light, what could possibly have given rise to the sundry dark patches here(top-left in particular)?
Nowhere are these pyjamas described as pink with dark bands.
"I didn't think of it at the time but the day Madeleine disappeared I noticed what I thought was a tea stain on her Disney pyjama top,' she says. 'I washed it without thinking..." (Kate McCann in 'madeleine')
“Regarding the photo on May 8 (Algarve Resident), we have to consider where it and the BBC photograph came from. In the case of the AR (because they told us) and the BBC (most likely) it was M&S.”
8 May 2007 (AR) http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic10155.html
8 May 2007 (BBC) http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42898000/jpg/_42898509_maddiepj.jpg
Perhaps, then, the BBC did not solicit a photo from M&S after all, but took their own instead?
We might add to this the PJ's forensic photographs (no button), yet different again.
What matters are not the various, so-called 'identical' pictures published here there and everywhere, but the 'official' photograph released by the PJ on the 10 May, a copy of which appeared in the Telegraph:
It is pallid, slightly out of focus, and the background colour is incompatible with ANY of the studio shots (AR, BBC, PJ). It reveals signs of parallax, as well as having been taken in ambient (day) light - again indicative of an amateur snapshot, NOT a studio effort.
The darker version published by the Daily Mail (clearly taken in the same session) holds a clue to the pyjamas' identity as 'Amelie's' (according to Kate McCann afterwards), and another that fixes the date (consistent with KM's own statement to Olga Craig of the Daily Telegraph):
"I returned to our apartment before Gerry had finished his tennis lesson and washed and hung out Madeleine’s pyjama top on the veranda."
This quote, which you found in 'madeleine', places KM alone in 5A on the Thursday morning, with a pair of very damp pyjamas; an image which, I would contend, the Daily Mail version more clearly represents.
Q: How is it possible to achieve an 'out-of-focus' picture with an automatic camera?
Coincidentally (again) Kate's Canon PowerShot A620 camera was an evolved product, its predecessors being noted for random focussing errors!
All of this points to Kate McCann's having taken those photographs before the night of Thursday 3 May; photographs which would only have been of use in the search for her daughter, who had yet to go missing.
Just to add (for the benefit of any readers of the Pat Brown school of 'evidence before theory') I accumulated these observations literally years ago.
When trying to measure these pyjama tops on screen, I noticed some of the design elements appeared to be not quite vertical (the effect of parallax). That led me to look more closely at other aspects. The accumulated data speak to the issues of 'who, when and where', from which arises the $64000 question: 'Why?'
It is one thing to state that doctors were plentiful, but clearly they would be of no fucking use to man nor beast if they were not around when the kid perhaps had an accident, didn't arrive back in time to resuscitate her!
Well said.
Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there..., Kate asked Fiona Payne.
What did Mrs Payne answer?
But not to worry, retired Met detective Andy Redwood had a revelation moment, one which saved Tanner's skin.
Just a way out for Tanner I think; it saved someone(s) else’s skin(s), but whose?
Retired Surgeon Gynaecologist to the Royal Family, Sir Marcus Setchell: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/04/article-2242878-1658F495000005DC-386_306x423.jpg
Misogynist Pensioner, Tony Bennett MA: http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ds070213.JPG
McCanns' photos might hold "the missing part of the jigsaw" of course.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6677803.stm
Jim Gamble, of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre, said: "No matter how small or insignificant the information may seem to you, it could be the missing part of the jigsaw, so let us decide if it is important.
"We are looking for anyone who was at the Ocean Club Resort or surrounding area in the two weeks leading up to Madeleine's disappearance on 3 May, who have photographs that might help our work."
"I wonder why a top PR man had to get involved in selecting photos given to the police?"
Genuine concern over photographs, as you rightly point out. Maybe there's someone out there with an interior view of 'Chaplin's' that shows GM in the background (or something else equally inappropriate)
No, I don’t, I mean the original WBM files, not the posts and pictures at the link you provided. Thanks for the link, I already had it. About three hour ago there was a post on CMoMM by a new guy (Abracadaver) who was ecstatic about your writings (and rightly so). I was just abuot to post a link for you but the post is no longer where it was, The guy made a ‘shutters’ mistake (or could have been just taking the piss) in his long, very well-written post, a couple of very encouraging comments followed, the third, TB’s, I found rather offensive and I suspect so would Abracadaver unless he was ready for it. I’ve just spent about 15min trying to find that post, it ain’t there. I’ll search later. If you come across it, Id love to have a copy please. Wooshing of WBM kind must have been contagious.
Sorry too that I seem to have missed the CMoMM post completely. Maybe admin. there have shifted it to some out of the way corner of their universe (or scrubbed it completely if it didn't meet with the committee's approval). Difficult to say really. I like the poster's pseudonym though ('Abracadaver' indeed).
I'll bear your ? in mind, in case I should spot something of relevance over there.
Fancy that, I’ve just been searching for it now. How did you find it? I’m not a CMoMM member and not about to become one, perhaps being a member would help?. Are you able get hold of the comments I was referring to in my earlier post? One of the three comments that were there, I think the first, was from a moderator, welcoming in intent, The second was also pleasant. Then TB tuned in seemingly having forgotten the Golden Rule and the St Paul’s potent reminder he appends to his posts: "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, think on these things..." (I’m not a preacher btw).
That's some kind of 'Magic Wand' you've got there! Thank you for coming to the rescue, as you have done so often it's almost embarrassing.
@09;38
Now I'm embarrassed.
Agnos @10:22
'Shortly after we arrived'?
Not as improbable as it might seem perhaps. How long is a piece of string? How short is 'shortly'? And if we adopt the idea that the poor lass spent a measure of time upstairs in 5J then we start to move nearer the beginning of the week than the end.
Neither am I a CMoMM member or any other forum member, and not about to become one. I only read occasionally. I found it by chance ('googled' some keywords).
The content can only be read 'in cache'. Original posts here (I think):
10 March 2016 at 11:21 One of my earliest and most lasting memories of Ameriki was in Buffalo NY. (the arsehole of NY State)
The bloke could have been drunk or he could have been dead, irrespective, he was there on the sidewalk to be stepped over.
That and the bloke (security) lounging against the rail at a drag meet near Niagra falls NY. I say bloke, but it was more the open holstered cannon he had strapped to leg.
For a young fellow-my-lad, still wearing underwear that was washed in the UK, quite an eye-opener I can tell you.
Grateful for your comments and links. Having stumbled upon Abracadaver’s post, my immediate thought was why wasn’t Abracadaver posting on the blog where M.R. himself could comment. Like yourself, I am not a member of any congregation.
“Not in the comments, it was in Abracadaver's post”
I have figured that. My mistake. One of the comments was similar.
“I do agree, in Dutch, in the literal meaning.” ?
M.R @10:56
“Now I'm embarrassed.”
Embarrassing but true. No “grains of sand” under Abracadaver’s microscope!
Agnos
Cautiously:
Napoléon had more ‘metal’ in him than the Iron Duke (of Wellington) (no disrespect for the Duke). Admittedly, I know more about Napoléon than about the Duke.
I mean I do agree with Abracadaver’s post. A well written comment, in English. I could have said something along those lines, in Dutch, but who would understand it?
As for the literal meaning ‘in Dutch’ I mean the language, not ‘in trouble’.
It is some sort of inside joke or so I think. Anyway, my intentions are good, please don’t let me be misunderstood.
Your link (http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12536-mystery-solved-we-ve-already-been-told-who-the-abductor-is) re-directs to a log-in page at http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/login?redirect=%2Ft12536-topic
Your link is likely to be to the thread I found yesterday: the name of the thread within the link tells me so. I would assume that the thread had been moved to a ‘members only’ part of the forum or disposed of in its entirety.
@13:45
I ‘get it’ now. I do not doubt your intentions. If ever there is a misunderstanding, we can sort it I’m sure. Please do not hesitate to question me. Dutch would be ‘double Dutch’ to me indeed.
"Just before I go, and while on subject of twitter, what am I to make of this wonderful tweeter who is offering to assess your mental health online and free of charge? By way of a thank you for offering this service I would like to offer this tweeter a remote diagnostic assessment of their computer H/D (free of charge of course),it would be rude not to."
“Here is another of those vivid, now cherished memories: Madeleine, in her Eeyore pyjamas, sitting on my lap and cuddling in – something of which she was especially fond when she was tired. We were on one of the two blue sofas, the one facing the patio doors, with Sean and Amelie to our right.”
You're catching on. 'Upholstery' is of course what seats are usually covered with.
Apartment 5A was indeed furnished with sofas covered in a blue, plain-weave fabric, unlike the Payne's apartment, where the furniture had the sheen of a 'velour', i.e. a fabric with a 'nap' (like the baize on a snooker table).
Such shadows as appear in the pyjama photos are cast to the left (which means the subject was lit from the right). The parallax suggests that whoever held the camera was not standing directly over the clothing, but viewing it at a shallower angle than 90 degrees (probably in order to frame the entire ensemble).
With this in mind it is possible to estimate where the photographer might have been standing, and in relation to what piece of background apparatus.
What it all comes down to, regardless of whether one describes the pyjamas as Madeleine's, Amelie's, Kate's or Gerry's even, is that any daytime photography inside 5A MUST have been undertaken before Madeleine's disappearance was announced.
The photographs which have pre-occupied me, literally for years, can have served only one purpose, i.e. to promote the search for a missing child - one whose absence had yet to be discovered.
It all points to the anticipation of events, which can only be reconciled as having followed in the wake of prior events. How long prior is of course a further topic for debate (although Kate wanting to use the washing machine on Monday affords us a clue). Personally I remain to be convinced that the child was actually in 5A that Thursday night.
Akin to realizing the significance of the 'Pearl Earring' I suppose.
Looking back, I recollect my other half (and passing offspring) viewing me askance, no doubt thinking me as eccentric as Barnes Wallis and his marbles, while I brandished a ruler at the computer screen, then aftwerwards, and more reasonably, at paper print-outs of version 1, verson 2 - version n of the images.
I was fixated on the clothing, with a 'hunch' that they held a clue of some kind, but couldn't get past the donkey's being an odd shape and the letters 'falling over backwards'.
It was while at close range, so to speak, that I noticed the weave in the background (thank goodness for a brief spell in the textile industry!) and thought 'What IS that?' The 'Eureka moment' folIowed a visit the other apartments (in the cinematic company of Eddie and Keela).
Despite all that, and the interval of time in-between (during which NM, bless his soul, stoically resisted publishing these data, and for reasons I never quite grasped), it is Maren who only very recently 'sealed off the trail', with that quote of Kate's which puts her alone and unaided inside 5A at an appropriate time.
I'm glad now that I made a nuisance of myself with 'H' over this, as IMHO Operation Grange is not long for this world, and coming out with these observations once the ledger is closed would be too late to be of any value at all. At least this way we can ratchet up the embarrassment if nothing else.
Thanks for the link. I haven't seen these. Two of the greats!
On all things "camera" and painting - here's Hockney.
There are some I know who are more than a bit sniffy as regards Hockney - but, well, they're completely wrong!
Anon @12.51,
A strange coincidence. The French philosopher, Bruno Latour, whose Turing paper I linked to (about 1000 comments ago!) has also written about that very painting - and in the same vein of "facsimile and code." It's not an easy paper to recommend. There are dazzling moments (PDF), but it's certainly not his best.
Latour also co-curated this project (PDF)...just to prove that art-code-philo isn't such a mysterious mix!!
What was missing people thinking in using such a bad example for the alert system? I think these parents are hiding something. There are millions of comments from people worldwide who have read the police files and say she actually killed her daughter by accident, then they hid the body to hide either bruising or sedation. There is even a doctor friend Of McCanns who accused them of sexually deviant behavior towards Madeleine. I read it in police files a statement by Dr Katerina Gaspar given to Leicester police
The Mcann's constantly spout, that there "is no evidence Madeleine has been harmed"
So, they do not consider that a stranger 'abducting' their daughter, and taking her away from her family for almost 9 years is harmful then??
In any case, the truth is that there is NO EVIDENCE of an abduction.
The Mcann's say that the abductor escaped through the bedroom window, and yet there is no evidence to prove this (lichen undisturbed by window and no fingerprints at all on the window, except KATE'S)
The Mcann's initially stated the shutters had been 'jemmied', when this was completely untrue, and they then changed their story to say the patio doors were unlocked.
If that's not enough to convince you. What kind of parent washes her missing child's favourite toy??
I don't know who managed to dump those EXIF data but well done. I've tried (and failed) doing just that.
However....unless I'm missing a trick here those data represent what is on record with the photo-library. Some of the numbers are of course technically relevant but no camera on earth knows whose holding it FFS!
Furthermore, among the IPTC data, the date and time of release suggests the image was distributed around 9/10 a.m. on 10 May(counting backwards nine hours or so). BUT THE PJ DIDN'T HOLD THEIR PRESS CONFERENCE UNTIL 6.30 p.m. that evening!!!
The countback in respect of the date created is also wrong (it's likewise c. 9 hours earlier but further down the listing the time of creation is given as 23.00, i.e. 11.00 p.m. (the time reported in my Microsoft Office synopsis btw.
Call me cynical but something in this is not to be trusted (I've yet to figure out exactly what).
Thanks and regards to whoever came up with the numbers
Another photo that is described as created on the 5th, and yet the description says May 10th.
epa01005214 Police officer Olegario Sousa speaks during a press conference in the police headquarters in Portimao related to the case of Madeleine McCann, the three year old British child, who went missing last week in the Ocean Club village of Praia da Luz, Algarve, southern Portugal, 10 May 2007. EPA/LUIS FORRA
And another. Created on the 5th...description says the 10th.
Put "Luis Forra Police" into the eap search. He has 3 "McCann" photos that are "created 05.05.07"...and in each case the description contradicts this with a date of "10th May 2007"
The exif data for "time" is all over the place...all of the time! But the date 05.05.07 consistently pertains to a description of 10.05.07.
Naturally I have a (slight) bias in these matters, but with Luis Forra credited with photographs he clearly did not take (i.e.,mini Madeleine) as well as events being recorded on 5 May that did not take place until five days later, I think it safe to reject the Forra did it on 5 May argument as unsubstantiated.
The case, as advanced, remains open!
I am very grateful to you both. Domesticity, including the ceaseless attention-grabbing demands of a small dog, has severely disrupted my own doings this evening (I doubt that I'd have arrived where both of you are as quickly in any case).
Lastly, please forgive the occasional 'typo'. I can spell really but when rattling away at speed I'm always likely to fall foul of a homophone or two (who's/whose being the case in point).
'Un abrazo a los dos' as they would say in the Missus' country.
More seriously, if the team were aware of the EXIF problem in the context of the 'last photo' (which was on Kate's camera) there is no reason why they should not have been equally concerned to 'sanitize' other time-sensitive records.
The sun does not appear in the heavens at 23:00 - even in Portugal. Unfortunately for the McCanns it hardly appeared at the scheduled time either!
Just by the by it was a local pro photographer who, years ago, suggested to me that the pyjama pics were taken in 'ambient light', as he put it, i.e. during daytime. I think in any case that Luis Forra would have done a much better job across the board than is in evidence in those pictures.
Yes, and I think LF was perhaps doing what many photographers do: photographing posters and "releases" to get them back as quickly as possible(?) (The px data could suggest a "crop" to that effect)
That all of his May 10th descriptions carry the same erroneous date and time closes the argument for me.
In the light of developments 'Himself' has seen fit to delete comments elsewhere concerning Luis Forra.
I have saved everything to USB just in case, including your various revealing and explanatory links.
Different outdoor photographs, at different places, and all captured at 11.00 p.m. - The man's not a photographer he's a magician. He must have seen 'The Prestige' the year before.
Ironically I became aware of this ongoing tirade at its very onset.
"I proved categorically that Forra took that photo for the PJ"
The only thing that's in the process of being proved categorically is, well...I'll leave that with you. Madeleine, of course, being beyond help of any description.
In the course of acting further upon your suggestion I noticed something rather curious.
I needed one particular image from within the EPA resource to complete the set associated with your own and Maren's links. (It is important, since the date referred to in the description is one which can be confirmed through other means, i.e. one doesn't have to trust the caption implicitly and absolutely - we know exactly what happened on that date).
Unfortunately, although I'd seen it the once I forgot where, so I went searching. En route I viewed a couple of Forra photographs at random and noticed that the creation dates matched the description dates (i.e. the date of the event) perfectly.
It's too late to be doing so tonight, but I think I shall sample a few more of Luis Forra's photos, because it prompts in me the question of why, in connection with Madeleine McCann, the information archived in relation to his early efforts is so wrong.
For example: He takes a photo of Olegario Sousa addressing the press on 15 May and the pic. is 'created' on 15 May. Yet an almost identical picture of the same subject a handful of days earlier results in 10 May as described but 5 May as captured.
I sense something rotten in the state of Denmark (or should that be Portugal?).
"Interviewer: [interrupting] But that's why you decided, I'm sorry... that's why you decided to come home?
Gerry McCann: No.
Kate McCann: No, they could still have arrested us, couldn't they? They could have stopped us from going home.
Interviewer: No, not if you're here. [i.e. in the UK]
Kate McCann: No, but they could have stopped us from going home.
Gerry McCann: There was no, you know, we... Our departure was cleared with the authorities. We had told the PJ we were going to leave on that weekend and, after our interviews, our lawyer absolutely clarified: 'Were we allowed to go?' There were no bail conditions, and the next day we, through the British Consul, we asked if we could leave and the senior investigators were put to the question: 'Do you have any objections?' and the answer was: 'No'."
"Certainly we are concerned. We are all concerned. I even had the possibility to speak with my colleague, Margaret Beckett. We have done all our best to have a solution for this situation. Certainly we will be working closely with our police and with the co-operation of British police in the next days and weeks if necessary to find a solution for this situation.
-------------------------------
"We have done all our best to have a solution for this situation."
Did they know that Madeleine was not 'a real, living and findable little girl'? M
There is a clue (if not the answer) to what was happening with the dates. If you look at the entry for "caption writer" on all of those photos that we have identified (05.05.07, caption May 10th) then you see very distinctive data. Typically: JR/PC/MA PT/JS/TP ED
I haven't found a single other of Forra's photos that carry such distinctive strings as those identified.
Photos carry not only exif data, but also IPTC data. I have accessed IPTC for all of these (and screen saved!) "Caption writer" (my understanding) refers to the software used by the photographer to read-write the IPTC/exif data. It is the "writer editor" in IPTC format.
So! The writer/editor used to add the captions associated with these photos' IPTC data is distinctive and uniformly wrong with respect to the date. My guess would be that it is simply corrupted or erroneous data associated with the process of "captioning" the images.
Not least, we have photos captioned in relation to a Catholic mass (Sunday 6th?) with an entry for Saturday (5th) and a caption for Thursday (10th)!! Worth checking but that is what I see!
215 comments:
1 – 200 of 215 Newer› Newest»Anonymous @12.00
Like this one, for instance:
"N.M
@AdirenM
In Portugal the police doesn't charge or clear anyone, it's the Ministério Público that does so."
Which suggests to me that it's all over bar the shouting.
Martin Roberts @13:26
I was hoping you would be a bit more optamistic - I honestly thought the analytical work you and others on this blog have done would have been replicated by the PJ/OG.
I will watch with interest BBC4 on Wednesday night on how the CPS secure a conviction.
Anonymous @14;21
Sorry to disappoint. I can state without fear of contradiction that GA hitherto and OG more recently have kept an eye on progress elsewhere (which gave cause for the appearance of 'Crechedad' IMHO).
As to the CPS, thank you for the 'heads up' regarding BBC4. In the meantime you might find this piece of interest:
'Those Who Can' (12.9.13) at http://www.mccannfiles.com/id436.html
https://twitter.com/w_nicht/status/702057721860898816
In memory of? One writes the full name of a person on a death notice. M
PCR wakes up.
The Under-Reporting of Fukushima
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2016/02/22/the-under-reporting-of-fukushima/
LOL
https://twitter.com/w_nicht/status/702099106500579328
And thanks for the Fukushima link H.
“There is one thing that really surprised me here in Europe. It’s the fact that people here think Japan is a very democratic and free country.” (Mako Oshidori)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/02/22/fukushima-deep-trouble/
http://www.gettyimages.nl/detail/nieuwsfoto's/police-officer-delivers-flowers-to-the-home-of-gerry-and-nieuwsfotos/76631960
Accompanying text:
“A police officer delivers flowers to the home of Gerry and Kate McCann on September 10, 2007 in Rothley, England. The McCanns returned from Portugal yesterday after local police questioned them and named them as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, 4, who vanished from their holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal several months ago. Portugal’s public prosecutor is due to review police papers detailing the Madeleine McCann inquiry.”
http://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t563p105-dr-martin-roberts-mccannfiles-com-new-blogs-here
Anonymous 23 February 2016 at 14:35
I shall look to your link when I have caught up with things a tad.
Japan has quite recently taken a massive step to the right (USA light) and the now censorship laws regarding Fukushima, (1984 heavy)
Kate McCann in ‘madeleine’:
Russell later asked us for our digital photos of Madeleine and went off somewhere with our camera.
Kate also 'checked her camera' to find a picture of Madeleine, according to Russell O'Brien.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
"We tried to find a picture of Madeleine Kate checked her camera but these were mainly of her at home or not such a clear picture. We found a picture of Madeleine but we couldn’t print it off. Cat or one of the nannies said that they had a printer and took the camera away to get some photos copied. A copy of the photo was given directly to the Police, someone from the Mark Warner staff made a poster - but I do not know who that was."
Kate McCann in 'madeleine':
Tuesday 1 May:
I ran back to our apartment for my camera to record the occasion. One of my photographs is known around the world now: a smiling Madeleine clutching armfuls of tennis balls.
?
It jumps off the page and grabs you by the whatever? And such a discrepancy under normal circumstances would I think, get you an invitation to the local nick.
A copy of the photo was given directly to the Police, someone from the Mark Warner staff made a poster - but I do not know who that was."
Oddly enough, my email yesterday evening to Martin.
It was this I was looking for, I’m sure there will plenty more somewhere.
Sometime between 0.30 and 1 am Gerry asks for the priest from the Luz parish to be called for him – but the Ocean Club staff members refused, given the time it was. (sol 18/8)
ca. 2.00 am Antonio Duarte, a commander for the GNR in Lagos, got the mysterious pictures. Four equal images, in sets of two, printed in photographic paper, 15,3 cm x 10,3 cm. The military declared to the PJ that he got the pics at 2 am on the 4th of May – four hours after the disappearance was reported. Antonio Duarte said he got the pictures when he was sitting in a vehicle when trying to get identification data of the McCanns, but that he cannot recall who gave him the pics.
Gerry declared that he was not the one that had given the pics to the GNR. But the dossier contains also declarations from Sílvia Baptista, responsible for the Ocean Club who says she saw the father of Madeleine give the pics, on a poster-type paper to one of the militaries of the GNR. "They were practically all similar" said Baptista. The PJ made a research of the printers available in Luz, but the sort of paper the pics of Maddie were printed on, could not be found anywhere. Nelson Costa, one of the militaries in the GNR who was called on the night of 3 May, was perplex. He told the PJ he saw several pictures of Maddie, some A4 size and others with the size of a poster, that 'couldn't have been made' in the reception of the Ocean Club. (Link)
PJ report says that the pictures were printed by nanny Amy Tierney.
Pictures were printed on a personal printer from a British staff member of Ocean Club. It was Russell O'Brien who brought a memory card and that member of staff brought the printer from her room. PJ asked for the printer, but she said her boyfriend took it with him to France.(Paulo Reis)
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id121.html
And from today's notes.
Martin
I picked up on this last night from the link I sent you. I had a bit of a ‘yer wot?’ moment.
He told the PJ he saw several pictures of Maddie, some A4 size and others with the size of a poster, that 'couldn't have been made' in the reception of the Ocean Club.
The implication being the ‘posters’ were larger than A4.
But from your link, a totally different interpretation.
As concerns the photos of the child, he says that he only saw what he calls the originals, poster type 10 x 15 cm on photographic paper. He did not see any other type of photos. Upon being shown a sample, he recognises it as being identical.
Much lost in translation I fancy
---------------------------------------
I don't believe one word of the McCann's narrative regarding who and when and how the photo's were produced.
H/MR
Have you read this?
http://bit.ly/1mYeFeq
The same clothes? M
M @20:51
Thanks for that. Another great 'find' (the author clearly got there ahead of me http://www.mccannfiles.com/id436.html)
"The same clothes?"
Certainly looks that way. Amelie was also bequeathed 'Maddie's Jammies'.
Rhetorical question: What mother would pass ownership of one of their children's clothing to another if the true owner were only temporarily absent (or at least expected to return)?
Just as interesting is how a photo can originate in the UK, having been taken in Portugal and yet not be among contemporary Portuguese images?
The same clothes?
I would say so, unless they were bought bigger in order that the tot could grow into them.
The same clothes. Indicative not definitive.
But open the thread, top right. What's with Merkle and her "hand jive"? Most odd, just an affliction or what?
Just as interesting is how a photo can originate in the UK, having been taken in Portugal and yet not be among contemporary Portuguese images?
Interesting yes, but it needs a source, otherwise . . . NWAW
Or not quite so cryptic . . .
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/TEiYu05xrJI/AAAAAAAAcrA/sOJd9uBO7Ic/s1600/jimmy's_little_rubber_stamp.jpg
And further on in the thread this:
Memories of a lost daughter
Kate McCann speaking last Wednesday about how the abduction of Madeleine has affected her and her memories of her daughter.
Cuddle Cat
"I was desperately hoping that Madeleine would be back before the cat got washed. In the end Cuddle Cat smelt of suntan lotion and everything. I forgot what colour it was. "It was special to Madeleine, she took it to bed every night. If she was upset or tired she had Cuddle Cat. It was special to her so it's special to me.
Talking about the night she went missing, she said: "I can't remember when I picked Cuddle Cat up. I don't think I did touch Cuddle Cat. I knew straight away a crime had been committed, we had no doubt about that.
"I look back sometimes and think 'you didn't do that badly.' We were very conscious of not touching things.
"I can't actually remember when I collected Cuddle Cat."
Kate dear, do me a personal, just fuck right off. Pray pardon.
Martin R. @23:17
Thanks for your link; classic and timeless. Anyone for Tennis?
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/til-9-5-7-km.jpg
It’s the same short (white stripe on the side) but perhaps they both had one. Did Kate ever mention her daughters’ same clothes thing except for the Eeyore pyjamas? I’m only aware of her preoccupation with Madeleine’s clothes, brands included.
Regarding your rhetorical question, same thought here.
Interesting indeed if it’s true that this photo is not on the list of photos the PJ took from their cameras.
Maren
Himself @06:38
And pictures spring to mind.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/TEWmJqrIWxI/AAAAAAAAbfg/gfiPYq65FkY/s1600/yapety_yap.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/SC2qq6paBUI/AAAAAAAAJnw/b9lnsBrvRb8/s400/Cuddle_Cat_2.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/TEWloI2821I/AAAAAAAAbd4/lQybEmr07ec/s1600/cuddlecat.co.uk.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_w-8JKaTohe4/TMMGFww8QfI/AAAAAAAAdsI/p3VYsXyBFNw/s1600/cuddlecat_tinfoil_hat.jpg
Classic and timeless.
Maren
Maren @07:31
"Interesting indeed if it’s true that this photo is not on the list of photos the PJ took from their cameras."
It doesn't appear in what we know as 'the files'
O/T
Dianne Webster (Rogatory interview -parenthesis mine)
4078 ”Did a routine develop then? Well it (Tapas dining) must have done I suppose, in the fact that it being booked at the same time every day.”
Reply ”Well yes I mean this is, this is why I think Madeleine was taken because we were, we were targeted from an early, early point I think, you know, we were doing the same thing everyday, every night, same routine.”
"WE" were 'TARGETED' early?
I get the impression from the close of RDH's final episode, that booking the tapas restaurant had less to do with mutual convenience(baby minding during restaurant hours was in fact FREE OF CHARGE) and more to do with setting up a situation which could invite the 'abduction'.
Hello all,
The origin of the tennis photo is also questioned here (you probably know already). The specifics don't convince me as being anything definitive. That said, red-green courts are the norm, so not impossible.
General point: Did "X" press the shutter on this one, or was it "Y" running back for the camera? It is as though we're left asking "did you shutdown the computer last night...or was it me?" Madeleine, as always, is either "missing" or reduced to being a "doll". We're expected to believe that there could be any "confusion" about an interaction with a little girl (recently "abducted") - a little daughter - a little friend - that sustains such obvious points of recall as: what did Madeleine say to you? what did you (the photographer) reply? Was this an easy photo to snap? Did Madeleine manage to hang on to those tennis balls? Did she run excitedly onto the court when a match was playing? etc. We are simply left with a time, a place, how she looked, and what she was wearing.
Nothing ever rings true to me.
Agnos
Agnos @09:45
More analytical subtlety from your good self:
"Nothing ever rings true to me."
Me neither.
Even the nanny (Cat Baker), who apparently had only three children in her care that Thursday afternoon, did not state categorically that she accompanied MADELEINE to High Tea toward 5.00 p.m., when the focus of the questions being put to her was on that one missing child specifically. In fact she didn't mention High Tea at all until the occasion of her Rogatory interview, which followed her stop-over with the McCanns at their home. Memory does not improve with time.
RDH may have wandered 'off piste' here and there, but there are genuine grounds for not accepting the McCanns' (and others') incongruous stories uncritically.
regards
M.R.
Agnos @09:45
Madeleine, as always, is either "missing" or reduced to being a "doll".
A very good account of the situation (she finds herself in).
Icon
May 3, 2008
"Madeleine does seem to have become iconic of missing children," Kate McCann told CNN in an interview as the couple launched a fresh appeal for information about Madeleine's whereabouts and vowed never to give up the search until she is found.
and
"We are interested in making a world safer for children," Gerry McCann said. "This [introduction European Child Rescue Alert] is something that could be implemented and it will save lives."
Whooshed while reading:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/02/mccann.year/
Saved Feb 25, 2016
http://web.archive.org/web/20160225111031/http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/02/mccann.year/
Best regards to all of you.
Maren
Kate McCann, a GP, and her husband, Gerry, a heart specialist, had left the toddler – dressed only in white pyjamas – sleeping with her two-year-old twin brother and sister.
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic247.html
M.R. @09:28
More 'target' and 'targeted'
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
4078 ”And you said that you think that because of your routine was going to Tapas every night that you’d been targeted, if you like, early on.”
Reply ”Definitely, definitely.”
4078 ”Was there anything about Madeleine, from what you knew of her that would lead somebody to target her in particular?”
Reply ”Well she was a lovely little girl, you know, err very petite, err quite a striking girl, and I don’t, I mean, well she was blonde, or fair haired, but it may have been also that whether the fact the end apartment was perhaps more accessible than any of the others. I really don’t know but I do think she was definitely targeted and I think err at the kids club, I think sometimes the children, the older children, were taken on outings to err I think they went to a beach so again she could have been watched, pinpointed then, err where they had high tea was on a raised area, it wasn’t in the Tapas restaurant it was another bit that was higher up, beside a wall which again they could be watched, the children could be seen from err beyond this, this wall.”
(...)
4078 “The, was there anything else you wanted to say?”
Reply “Well other than the fact that she was definitely targeted and I think we made it easy for them by doing the same thing everyday, every night.”
It's like she's reading off a script. Did someone give her the idea? She seems like a trusting person. M
Copy of email to Martin
I have said before on occasion, Dianne Webster knew diddly squat when interviewed by the PJ, but she was right on script by the time of her rogatory.
.. . .. Concerning the day yesterday, she went to the beach with the children, her son-in-law and her daughter. They arrived there at around 3.45pm and left at around 6.15pm to go to the tennis courts where she stayed until 7pm. The informant then went to the apartment with the small children and ten minutes later, her son-in-law, David, joined them. With her son-in-law's help, they bathed the children.
. . . . During this holiday, she has noticed nothing unusual or which could be linked to the investigation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER.htm
Dianne Webster Rogatory
4078 ”But Wednesday stands out to you because you know the weather wasn’t very good?”
Reply ”Wednesday I remember because it was raining in the morning, we thought oh no tennis, you know, but we did have the tennis later on because I remember err we were waiting for the courts to dry.”
. . . . 4078 ”And you said that you think that because of your routine was going to Tapas every night that you’d been targeted, if you like, early on.”
Reply ”Definitely, definitely.”
. . . . 4078 ”Was there anything about Madeleine, from what you knew of her that would lead somebody to target her in particular?”
Reply ”Well she was a lovely little girl, you know, err very petite, err quite a striking girl, and I don’t, I mean, well she was blonde, or fair haired, but it may have been also that whether the fact the end apartment was perhaps more accessible than any of the others. I really don’t know but I do think she was definitely targeted and I think err at the kids club, I think sometimes the children, the older children, were taken on outings to err I think they went to a beach so again she could have been watched, pinpointed then, err where they had high tea was on a raised area, it wasn’t in the Tapas restaurant it was another bit that was higher up, beside a wall which again they could be watched, the children could be seen from err beyond this, this wall.”
A possible maybe perhaps?
Thursday
. . . 4078 ”Who else was there around that time?”
Reply ”Who else? Well it was, it was all of us err apart from Kate and Gerry and their children, yeah we were all there . . .
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
Methinks the lady doth tell porkies.
[Martin previously] And bugger me if we haven't been told by Kate about a note (in Portuguese, obviously) written inside a staff notebook, which not only announced their Tapas booking intentions, but explained that they wanted to leave the kids unattended.
We are getting into some serious bridge selling here.
The notebook has, of course, not since materialised in any evidential form.
Fancy that!
Not Coral Jones and Kate McCann then.
No. Lead with the USP.
Yet another ingredient to add to the current flavours.
Whatever one's misgivings over detail, I suspect the RDH premise is giving cause for concern back at base.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
https://twitter.com/EndAbductionNow/status/703267668804116483/photo/1
How cosy.
There you go!
http://anncoffeymp.com/child-rescue-alert-parliamentary-event/
May 2010
http://twitpic.com/1r0e3a
Press conference on June 6, 2007 in Berlin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ3ForLXJT0
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/jun/06/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
Looking horrified, Mrs McCann said she thought it was only "a very small minority of people that are criticising us".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ3ForLXJT0
1:35 Kate McCann:
"So these are actually apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine's doesn't have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."
It's all in the details. M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rQazjM-bCo
http://bit.ly/1S9yegU
lol
http://bit.ly/1or10hl
M,
You are a star!
Ag.
Ag.
I'll borrow it back!
You are a star!
M.
M/Ag.
Please can I play too?
You're both stars. But to think I'd missed this little beauty (M@07:540
The topic is never far from my mind and that sentence is a cracker!
M.R.
"To be honest, I don't actually think that is the case. I think that is a very small minority of people that are criticising us.
"I have never heard before that anyone considers us suspects in this. The Portuguese police certainly don't," her husband added, before insisting "there is absolutely no way Kate and I are involved in this abduction."
A bit of mileage still left in this one Chuck, along with a few screenshots from the clip.
And thank you kindly fair maid for the pic links.
“Armed with notebook, pen and dated photographs, I would be challenging myself to piece together as comprehensive an outline of the sequence of events as I could.” (Kate McCann in 'Madeleine')
'dated photographs' - all five of them.
Unless of course she was also referring to her pictures of Lagos Marina and a pair of pyjamas!
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS_VISION.htm
M.R. @15:13
A tense situation.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id400.html
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/BV/02volume_II_apenso_VIII_Page_331.jpg
“This person [that had a strong vision that Madeleine was on a boat with a man in the Marina in Lagos] arrived in Portugal and has spoken to Kate”.
-------------------------------
Talking of a strong vision... M
http://www.cbc.ca/news2/reportsfromabroad/durham/20080502.html
The Hubbards Haynes, an Anglican priest who was about to take up a new post as senior chaplain for the Algarve Anglican Church, and Susan, a midwife arrived in Praia de Luz three days after Madeleine's disappearance.
(...)
"It wasn't until months later, when I saw really why God had brought us here, that I was awestruck that he confirmed we were to be here before we even set foot in our town of Praia de Luz," she says. "For me, he confirmed it on the plane ... the fact that there was a child missing here gave us our first mission before we even set foot in the place."
(...)
"It was pretty clear that He was using us, of the same age [as the McCanns] and with small children and Susan speaking Portuguese … and being able to relate to them in a tiny way, to lead them in prayer and just to walk with them," he said.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/CE/f.jpg
https://www.tripadvisor.co.uk/ShowUserReviews-g1900764-d292944-r144487888-Stobo_Castle-Stobo_Scottish_Borders_Scotland.html
https://www.holidaywatchdog.com/38202-Eastbourne-Hilton_and_Royal_Parade_Hotel-Holiday-Review.html
"Hilton" - more like "Shill-ton"
If this hotel was housing convicts then HM Inspector of Prisons would close it down.
Just opinions of course, because there's no place like home.
Nice pictures though.
http://www.guiaviajesa.com/19-lugares-con-encanto-para-ver-antes-de-morir/
Goodnight to you all. M
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Susan_Hubbard_12_09_2013.htm
c) Guerra & Paz's lawyer's questions
GP first asks if SH knows GA and when she met the McCanns for the first time.
SH answers she once saw GA somewhere in PDL and met the McCanns a few days after her arrival in PDL (3 days after Madeleine disappeared).
Kate's aunt Nora Paul arrived in Praia da Luz on 4 May 2007.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FAMILY.htm#nora
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic8929.html
12 Sep 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1562905/Police-seek-McCanns-laptop-to-read-emails.html
Police sources said criminal instructing judge Pedro Miguel dos Anjos Frias is drawing up papers approving the request which are expected to be passed to Leicestershire police tommorrow.
Mr McCann took his laptop back to the UK at the weekend and it is understood it will be analysed by officers in the UK.
-------------------------
02/05/2008
http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/kate-mccanns-special-message-for-service-360425.html
Ironically, given the low crime rate in the village, Father Hubbard’s laptop was stolen from his home this week.
Although the computer contained nothing more important than his sermons, the theft is “annoying”, he said.
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/9930/
Oops, we seem to have encountered a problem loading this page.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080621123105/http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/9930/
The parish priest also gave the McCanns the keys to the church so that they could pray there alone in the evenings. It was while they were doing this early in the first week that Mr McCann had an extraordinary experience.
"When I was praying I started thinking of all the things that were happening. There were lots and lots of ideas in my head and how we could make things better and I was really feeling very down and not sure which way to proceed. I had this mental image of being in a tunnel and instead of the light at the end of the tunnel being extremely narrow and a distant spot, the light opened up and the tunnel got wider and wider and went in many different directions. I talked to you [Kate] about it and said, ‘I am not prepared to pursue one path. We are going to do everything in our power to influence things.'
"It was almost like something - I am not saying it was the Holy Spirit - came into me and gave me that image. That is when I really felt I had a clear path."
Was it a religious experience?
"I can't say it was a vision because I am not clear what a vision is but I had a mental image and it certainly helped me decide. I became a man possessed that night. The next day I was up at dawn, making phone calls."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/M_THOMPSON.htm
"On Monday [7 May], Gerry became more confused regarding what to do and how to do it. Monday morning, Fiona Payne knocked on our door and told us of a search, organised by some residents and tourists. We were transported with about 10 other people in a mini bus. We spent the morning searching the terrain and fields of difficult access near the resort. I cannot recite precisely the locale.
There was no police involvement in this search. Around 12h00 I received a telephone from Kate asking if Nicky and I could take care of the twins while they attended a session with the media asking for help and had just returned to the resort. Between us both, we watched the twins that afternoon. That night, a group of local women and children, accompanied by the church's priest arrived at the apartment and prayed the rosary. It was at this time that Kate was given access to the church and Gerry was loaned a lap-top with access to the internet.
Kate McCann in 'madeleine'
"His ‘vision’- I don’t know what else to call it – in that beautiful little church had a huge impact on Gerry. It was this experience that laid the foundations or our organized campaign to find our daughter.
From the minute he got up the next morning [9 May], Gerry was on a mission. Among the first people he spoke to was the ambassador, John Buck. The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, also happened to call him. He pleaded with them both to try to improve the way the investigation and the search were being handled. We needed it to be far better than this, he told them. They knew that, too, I’m sure.
https://twitter.com/AdirenM/status/704263694742642690
Their 'helpers' and the media picked that up very quickly, and continue to do so. M
At http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12033p20-l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun-doesn-t-add-up
Re: l-azzeri lies in the sun: Doesn't add up
Doug D Today at 7:40
Still going:
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/K_McCann_Spinning_a_Yarn.html
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/G_McCann_Spinning_a_Yarn.html
At http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12480p80-katie-hopkins-in-dm-the-mccanns-should-accept-their-part-of-the-blame-and-didn-t-deserve-11-million
Re: Katie Hopkins in DM: The McCanns should accept 'their part of the blame' and didn't deserve 11 million.
melisande Today at 11:22 am
I see the dutch newspaper De Telegraaf has picked up the Daily Mail story or at least their columnist has.
https://vrouw.nl/phaedra_werkhoven/30039/is_de_moeder_van_maddie_mccann_schuldig_aan_de_dood_van_haar_dochter
Notice the headline. Is the mother of Maddie McCann guilty over the death of her daughter? No messing about here with that heading.
Could Maren comment?
Anon @11:41
“Is the mother of Madeleine McCann guilty of her daughter’s death?” in the headline.
“Did her parents kill her or was she abducted while her parents were dining with friends?” in the introduction.
For the rest it’s just another story of a mother and ‘leaving kids alone’, which she herself has done while her children were playing outside. It’s written in response to Katie Hopkins’ article. M
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/McCanns_Spinning_Yarns.html
thrown to the wolves
11 February 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/feb/11/gerry-mccann-hacked-off-david-cameron-press-regulations
McCann on Monday afternoon laid down the gauntlet to prime minister David Cameron, calling on him to deliver the promise he made during and after the Leveson inquiry to "protect the people who have been thrown to the wolves as we were".
"as we were"; as they are?
http://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t563p105-dr-martin-roberts-mccannfiles-com-new-blogs-here#50107
As @AdirenM has said, "what a case study".
Classic images of Near Death Experience are not only documented in the arts (Bosch in link) and psychology (tunnels being the classic NDE image). They are also known to medical research, notably anaesthesia -
...research...has revealed how the effects of an NDE can be induced by ketamine...
The symbolism of "emerging from a tunnel" is particularly hard to ignore given the context of a church and the "absence" of a first child (birth/death etc). There are many ways that a "way forward" might be symbolised. It just so happens that the McCanns chose(?) one that is historically associated with death.
Thinking aloud here.
Agnos
According to Gerry McCann the Portuguese do not have a navy.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/03/mccann-web-of-deceit-portugal-doesnt.html
No surprise then that the PJ cannot tell the difference between a boat and a pair of trousers. Or is the last photograph here some kind of unique insignia - that of Vasco da Pyjama perhaps?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS_VISION.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11078595/Madeleine-McCann-are-we-any-closer-to-knowing-the-truth.html
29 Feb 2016
Why does The Telegraph publish the same article over and over again?
Anyway, back to the case study, Vasco da Pyjama and all that.
Later. M
He is risen, just.
Martin, let me deal publicly with the first part of your email. Only my bold this time.
INFORMATION FROM THE FAMILY
I spoke to Kate McCann on Tuesday 8th of May 07. She told me that a friend of her Aunt & Uncle from Leicester had a friend that had a strong vision that Madeleine was on a boat with a man in the Marina in Lagos.
This person arrived in Portugal and has spoke to Kate. They have visited the Marina and identified the boat as "SHEARWATER". They saw a man on the boat but this was not the same man that she had in her vision.
. . . a couple of undated lines penned by (FLO) Dectective Constable Markley of Leicester plod
I don't know about anybody else, but what is writ there takes my breath away.
A police detective, albeit a lowly one, accepting into the case photo's based on a vision by someone connected to the McCanns. Not only that, the vessel, one of possible hundreds(?) has been specifically identified and named.
Now if that don't take your breath away, Leicester plod then proceed to inundate the PJ with a portfolio of boat pics, seemingly without embarrassment.
Little wonder Amaral accused LP of taking the piss.
Is there any wonder?
http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2011/09/question.html
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/McCanns_The_Spin_Goes_On.html
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/What_Do_They_Know.html
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Thrown_-_Kate_McCann.html
H @10:31
Permit me to elaborate, publicly, on the topic in question (see last of the boat pics for relevance).
Kate McCann (to Olga Craig - Sunday Telegraph, 27.5.07):
"I haven't been able to use the camera since I took that last photograph of her."
A constraint that must necessarily apply to photographs of Amelie McCann's pyjamas, hence:
Pyjamas photographed before late Thursday afternoon.
Madeleine McCann first noticed missing Thursday night.
Cart before the horse?
"I haven't been able to use the camera since I took that last photograph of her."
Thank you Sir, simples what?
Just a thought.
It's not unusual, as in my own case, to have more than one SD card for a camera.
H @11:06
That cannot influence the 'Arrow of Time'. Multiple SD cards maybe, but only one camera - 'the camera'
The Arrow of Time runneth but one way.
Intro only and clips at bottom of page.
http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2011/08/arrow-of-time.html
Agnos 25.02.16 @09:45
Madeleine, as always, is either "missing" or reduced to being a "doll".
We are simply left with a time, a place, how she looked, and what she was wearing.
How simple and true are the above statements!
Everything McCann rings false to me.
Martin Roberts 01.03.16 @08:58
According to Gerry McCann the Portuguese do not have a navy.
Not quite so, for according to Gerry at http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/03/mccann-web-of-deceit-portugal-doesnt.html
Gerry: …And ye know the officer kind of laughed at us and said “you know this isn’t you know we don’t have a Royal Navy”
Martin Roberts 01.03.16 @10:50
Was it KM who took the pyjamas picture?
Anonymous @13:09
I wonder, too.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/BV/02volume_II_apenso_VIII_Page_331.jpg
I [Nackley?] spoke with Kate today [8 May] and she has given me photographs of the boat. She has also given me a photograph of a man who had been on the boat. This is not the man that the woman had in her vision.
“Photographs of the boat, a photograph of a man who had been on the boat” and a photograph of the Eeyore pyjamas?
Based on my theory (just a theory) that the McCanns changed the pyjamas/clothes Madeleine was wearing into the Eeyore pyjamas after Tanner’s sighting, I wonder who made that photo of Eeyore’s after 3 May?
Maren
Anonymous @13:09
'Gerry: …And ye know the officer kind of laughed at us and said “you know this isn’t you know we don’t have a Royal Navy”'
To which McCann replied "Of course you do!" (not).
'Was it KM who took the pyjamas picture?'
They're her daughter Amelie's (according to her), the pair they took with them around Europe.
Maren @14:10
"I wonder who made that photo of Eeyore’s after 3 May?"
That's just the point. I don't think anyone took those photos (there is more than one version) after 3 May at all, but beforehand.
Kate McCann: "I haven't been able to use the camera since I took that last photograph of her."
When did she say the last photo was taken again? The Thursday afternoon wasn't it?
So if I'm right about this, how did she know a picture of her daughter's pyjamas would come in handy later?
Remember that sentence you quoted up-thread (@07:54):
"So these are actually apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine's doesn't have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."
The pyjamas couldn't have come back for a photo-shoot if they'd been abducted.
I understand the pyjamas were purchased from M&S - I cannot see M&S making two tops exactly the same but one with the slight change of a button on the back. They would normally have different bottoms ie patterned or plain for mix and match but to attach a button on the back of a top?
Anonymous @15:07
"I understand the pyjamas were purchased from M&S"
In 2006. It's a long time since I visited M&S, but I don't think Eeyore was the only set they sold that had a 'Disney' theme.
The pair eventually supplied on request to the PJ had a plain t-shirt top (no button - see the forensic photos in the files), as did the stock photo published by the Algarve Resident on 8 May - but this was 2007 don't forget. In the apparel trade, suppliers/specifications can and do vary over time.
Martin Roberts
01.03.16 @14:26
To which McCann replied "Of course you do!" (not).
When did GM say that?
01.03.16 @10:50
A constraint that must necessarily apply to photographs of Amelie McCann's pyjamas, hence:
Pyjamas photographed before late Thursday afternoon.
01.03.16 @14:26
'Was it KM who took the pyjamas picture?'
They're her daughter Amelie's (according to her), the pair they took with them around Europe.
01.03.16 @14:35
"So these are actually apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine's doesn't have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."
The pyjamas couldn't have come back for a photo-shoot if they'd been abducted.
It follows from the above that the photograph at your link (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS_VISION.htm) is of Amelie McCann's pyjamas and these pyjamas “the pair they took with them around Europe” (they had “Amelie McCann's pyjamas” in their possession to take a picture of).
It seems that unless KM is on the record as having said that she herself had taken the picture at your link, the picture’s provenance as well as the creation date must remain uncertain.
Anonymous @15:58
"It seems that unless KM is on the record as having said that she herself had taken the picture at your link, the picture’s provenance as well as the creation date must remain uncertain."
About as uncertain as 'cadaverine detected in 5A + missing child = ?'
I would suggest.
Given their performances over the past decade KM's being 'on the record' over anything is scarcely a pre-requisite for determining the truth of things.
It matters not a jot whether one describes these items of clothing as Madeleine's or Amelie's (Kate McCann is at least 'on the record' as attributing them to her younger daughter, which means they were in the family's possession from the outset and in time to feature in a variety of photographs within the week).
The black and white version we see archived alongside the photographs from Lagos Marina represents 'Information from the Family', as per the covering note of DC Markley (Leicester Police).
James Murray (Sunday Express) contends that Kate took the marina photos. Considering what they actually portray I would not disagree. And since Gerry McCann has also told us "Kate usually takes the photographs" I am inclined, on balance to attribute to her the photography of her own daughter's clothing.
Although not an expression of absolute certainty it is 'beyond a reasonable doubt' I think, given that alternative candidates can be ruled out.
Btw. Gerry McCann did NOT say what I attributed to him as the obvious reply. (I thought I'd negated it in brackets?)
The pyjamas being sent are 'equal' in make, model, size, colours and designs as well as presumably the texture, to those the little girl was wearing at the time of her disappearance. The article sent serves for eventual comparisons with fibres collected by the competent officers of the Police Scientific Lab, within the scope of the current investigation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PORTUGUESE-FORENSIC.htm#p7p1713
Front and back view.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3484.jpg
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3485.jpg
I'm working my way through all the comments. M
M @17:14
Take it easy.
To quote the Duke of Wellington: "I've had this ground in my pocket" (literally for years I might add)
And GA: "I know more - much more
As for this:
"The pyjamas being sent are 'equal' in make, model, size, colours and designs as well as presumably the texture, to those the little girl was wearing at the time of her disappearance. The article sent serves for eventual comparisons with fibres collected by the competent officers of the Police Scientific Lab, within the scope of the current investigation."
'equal etc. presumably in texture' smacks of naivety unfortunately.
As soon as we recognise that the T-shirt photographed by the PJ (as a record of their forensic examination) is not EXACTLY the same as that represented in all those 'official photographs', we must raise such questions as 'origin of manufacture', 'fibre type', even 'batch no.', to be sure of answering those forensic questions with absolute certainty (to quote 'Anonymous' upstream).
Unless of course one accepts, uncritically, Kate McCann's suggestion that there were at least two pairs of Eeyore pyjamas in PdL that week, belonging to each of her two girls (as if!).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6635463.stm
Last Updated: Tuesday, 8 May 2007, 16:33 GMT 17:33 UK
photo pyjamas
A set of pyjamas identical to the ones Madeleine was wearing.
(without the button on the back)
Why were the McCanns showing Amelie’s Eeyore pyjamas top (with the button) and not the one Madeleine allegedly wore? Can I presume there was an identical one, as shown in the picture?
Apart from that, why did they drag Amelie into their pyjamas show? It's totally unnecessary and it seems almost cruel. M
Martin Roberts
To quote the Duke of Wellington: “I mistrust the judgement of every man in a case in which his own wishes are concerned.”
01.03.16 @16:31
“About as uncertain as 'cadaverine detected in 5A + missing child = ?'
I would suggest.”
The relevance of your comparison is dubious to say the least. I take it you are implying that once a liar, always a liar. There are grounds to argue that the couple in question do tell the truth, occasionally.
The scent of cadaverine was detected in 5A, which by itself was not evidence of cadaverine being present but a pointer to where cadaverine could have been present. No cadaverine has yet been discovered in 5A if I remember correctly.
“Given their performances over the past decade KM's being 'on the record' over anything is scarcely a pre-requisite for determining the truth of things.”
Very much so. Nevertheless, KM’s being on the record is a pre-requisite for determining the untruth “of things”.
“It matters not a jot whether one describes these items of clothing as Madeleine's or Amelie's (Kate McCann is at least 'on the record' as attributing them to her younger daughter, which means they were in the family's possession from the outset and in time to feature in a variety of photographs within the week).
The black and white version we see archived alongside the photographs from Lagos Marina represents 'Information from the Family', as per the covering note of DC Markley (Leicester Police).
James Murray (Sunday Express) contends that Kate took the marina photos. Considering what they actually portray I would not disagree. And since Gerry McCann has also told us "Kate usually takes the photographs" I am inclined, on balance to attribute to her the photography of her own daughter's clothing.”
Agreed. The relevance to your instant argument of the preceding quote is unclear however. "Kate usually takes the photographs" = Kate does not always take the photographs.
Your inclination, justified in my opinion, in this instance is no substitute for facts and hence is capable of being detrimental to your general stand (with which I agree). I guess that in a court of law one would be unable to defend your position with regard to the above if one argued as you are doing in this instance.
“Btw. Gerry McCann did NOT say what I attributed to him as the obvious reply. (I thought I'd negated it in brackets?)”
I am at fault having misunderstood you. Your use of quotation marks confused me and your bracketed negation in postposition I understood as indicating your attitude towards GM’s answer.
01.03.16 @17:34
“As soon as we recognise that the T-shirt photographed by the PJ (as a record of their forensic examination) is not EXACTLY the same as that represented in all those 'official photographs', we must raise such questions as 'origin of manufacture', 'fibre type', even 'batch no.', to be sure of answering those forensic questions with absolute certainty…”
Absolutely: “…such questions…” raise we must “… to be sure of answering those forensic questions with…certainty…” beyond reasonable doubt.
“…(to quote 'Anonymous' upstream).”?
In this context we are dealing with certainty beyond reasonable doubt, which is not the same as absolute certainty (putting aside the subtleties of the meaning and use of ‘certainty’).
Perhaps Agnos would be kind enough to adjudicate.
I was under the impression that you’d considered details important and that’s why I started all this.
It seems that the number of comments on this thread has changed dramatically: about one hundred yesterday, about seventy today. Are you able to tell me whether all the comments are still accessible?
Regards.
In addition to my comment @09:59
There was an identical one being sent to the PJ.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3484.jpg
Why not to the McCanns? M
Anon @2 March 2016 at 10:40,
Perhaps Agnos would be kind enough to adjudicate. I was under the impression that you’d considered details important and that’s why I started all this.
I'm in no position to adjudicate. There are people commenting here (yourself included) whose knowledge of detail outstrips my own by some margin. I can only speak from my own perspective.
I think you are right to insist upon the primacy of detail and established "facts" as the foundation of any "theory." And to be challenged upon that basis is what enables us all to move forward.
However, what is also at stake here is the "creative" aspect of coming to a consistent understanding that might align certain details that might previously have been considered unimportant, disconnected, or completely overlooked. The "leap" of conjecture is sometimes necessary and productive. Martin has said exactly this elsewhere. The "what if" - "it seems likely" - "proceeding as though..." of any discussion is what can lead to the most valued asset of a "new fact". Knowledge is always a work in progress.
I accept that there is an ethical dimension to this. These are people that we are discussing, and not abstract concepts. It clearly necessitates a special type of care (Murat etc.)!
If this case were ever to be presented in court, then yes, what we would see from the prosecution would be the smooth transition of facts and details that lead inexorably (they would hope) to only one conclusion. But the process of arriving at such facts and details would certainly not be smooth. Conjectures would circulate (stand and fall) until a determination could be reached!
These are just my impressions. To be challenged on detail is always welcome to me, and perhaps you will stick around to see where things go.
I don't know whether that was helpful at all!
Regards,
Agnos
http://web.archive.org/web/20070513045119/http://www.policiajudiciaria.pt/htm/Ingles/missing_person/madeleine.htm
She was wearing a pyjama similar to the one in the photo beside.
A photo of "Amelie’s"?
It's the same photo as the last one on
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BOATS_VISION.htm
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/madeleine/1022581/Kate-McCann-Trip-to-Brussels-Launch-child-alert-system.html
10 April 2008
Video McCanns call on European Union for Amber Alert
from 1:00
Anonymous @13:33
I know.
Anonymous @10:40
I find this scrolling comment format a less than ideal vehicle for elaborate discussion. Pardon me if I endeavour to be as concise as possible therefore.
“To quote the Duke of Wellington: ‘I mistrust the judgement of every man in a case in which his own wishes are concerned.’”
Your prerogative entirely.
'About as uncertain as 'cadaverine detected in 5A + missing child = ?'
I would suggest.'
“The relevance of your comparison is dubious to say the least. I take it you are implying that once a liar, always a liar. There are grounds to argue that the couple in question do tell the truth, occasionally."
No doubt. When it suits them.
"'The scent of cadaverine was detected in 5A', which by itself was not evidence of cadaverine being present but a pointer to where cadaverine could have been present. No cadaverine has yet been discovered in 5A if I remember correctly."
“I was under the impression that you’d considered details important”
Indeed I do, but I am not prepared to venture into discussion of the microscopic. This is not a court of law and I am not a forensic scientist.
The point I wished to make is that oftentimes in life (as well as in court btw) we are required to ‘put two and two together’, even when obliged to consider instances of 2+x=4, when no one is ‘on record’ as quantifying x in the first instance.
"'Kate usually takes the photographs' = Kate does not always take the photographs."
"Your inclination, justified in my opinion, in this instance is no substitute for facts and hence is capable of being detrimental to your general stand (with which I agree). I guess that in a court of law one would be unable to defend your position with regard to the above if one argued as you are doing in this instance."
Perhaps not. It is anybody’s guess, if it comes to that (i.e., guesswork). But, again, we are neither counsel for the prosecution nor the defence. Added to which, the point being discussed is but one of several 'lines of evidence', if you will, the totality of which would needs be assessed as a whole (‘weight of evidence’ and all that).
Kate may not have taken all the photographs, but in this particular instance, and following Gerry McCann’s favoured ‘rule out method’, alternative candidates may be discounted, leaving Kate and her own ‘not after 3 May’ statement somewhat high and dry.
I am not inviting you to take this on trust necessarily (‘old Ironsides’ probably would not), but should you be in any doubt, you are perfectly welcome to re-invent the wheel and investigate whether others might have been responsible for these photographs, as I have done.
There remains one question which I don’t believe you’ve asked so far, and that is: ‘How can I be sure the black and white picture of pyjamas represents ‘Amelie’s’, as identified by Kate McCann?
As M (13.33) has quite recently pointed out, the b&w picture is identical to the colour version incorporated in the PJ circular. That is not quite how I arrived at the conclusion, but this being a public arena M’s link must suffice for the time being.
Regards
M @10:55
"There was an identical one being sent to the PJ.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P13/13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3484.jpg
Why not to the McCanns?"
The PJ's forensic photos were taken in late Summer (it took a while for the clothing to arrive from M&S UK - all their Portuguese branches had been closed prior to the McCanns' arrival on the Algarve)
So no, the clothes would not have arrived with the McCanns during the first seven days. They actually showed their pyjama pic to the press on 7 May - three days before the PJ 'released' it. Nor are the pyjamas in their picture identical to those photographed by the PJ or those represented in the M&S stock photo published by the Algarve Resident (8 May).
I think your subsequent link to the PJ 'flyer', and reference therein to Amelie's pyjamas, makes the direction of information flow perfectly clear, don't you?
cheers
M.R.
M
Correction to above (15:35) - my mistake - the PJ release does not refer to the pyjamas as 'Amelie's' (you do - naughty!).
But never mind, they ARE the same pyjamas that travelled to Europe (trust me - even though the Duke of Wellington et al might not).
Btw. I didn't just drop on this idea because of a black and white picture. The evidence is all in glorious technicolour and has been staring everyone in the face since week 1.
Regards
M.R.
Dr Roberts I have read the posts on this thread twice but am slightly confused as to what the outcome is - would it be possible to do a quick synopsis? thank you in advance!
Anonymous @16:33
Which posts? What outcome?
I don't think anyone should expect a consequence from such an exchange as takes place on a blog such as this (except perhaps for one or other party to get upset and take their toys home).
I jest, but I have no idea who you are, why you should need a quick synopsis, or indeed what it is you require a synopsis of.
I don't mean to be rude, but I am not about to summarise or 'bag up' an argument, which could lead to making certain others' tasks easier.
Sorry
M.R.
M @09;59
"Why were the McCanns showing Amelie’s Eeyore pyjamas top (with the button) and not the one Madeleine allegedly wore? Can I presume there was an identical one, as shown in the picture?
"Apart from that, why did they drag Amelie into their pyjamas show? It's totally unnecessary and it seems almost cruel."
Sorry. I seem to have overlooked these questions. I think they can both be resolved with reference to the second of them, i.e. 'Why drag Amelie into the show?'
If there were only one pair to begin with, they clearly could not have been returned after 'the abduction'. But with 'stills' already in the can, declaring 'Maddie's jammies' to be 'Amelie's' explains how it was possible to release the images at all.
M.R.
Martin R.
Thank you for the elaboration. It’s an interesting journey.
Something that I never thought I would read:
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2001/dec/21/marksspencer
Regards,
Maren
Maren @21:40
So now we've taken another step on that journey.
Had those pyjamas come from anywhere outside PdL it would have had to be the UK. But Gerry did not make his first trip home until 21 May. Which tells us that they were in PdL from the outset.
Once identified as Amelie's though, they could not also have been Madeleine's, so hers are described as a little bigger and
NOT having a button-up top.
Instinct tells me the button aspect has less to do with garment size and more to do with design and supplier.
Pre-2006 (the year when the pyjamas were purchased) the tops incorporated a button. The design was probably amended to a simple t-shirt (to save money) some time thereafter.
As regards children's pyjamas in general, the difference between the very early age groups is expressed almost entirely in the trousers (legs being the limbs that grow the quickest it would seem). The tops are virtually the same size for infants of 2 - 4 or thereabouts.
regards
M.R.
Last Updated: Tuesday, 8 May 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6635463.stm
A set of pyjamas identical to the ones Madeleine was wearing.
(photo of the ‘no button' ones)
Last Updated: Thursday, 10 May 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6644615.stm
Madeleine was wearing pink Eeyore pyjamas when she disappeared
(photo of the ‘button’ ones)
Why, on May 10, change the photo into 'Amelie’s' pyjamas if the photo on May 8 reflects the identical ones, the pyjamas Madeleine was wearing?
We passed on the accurate details of Madeleine's pyjamas, at the family's request, correcting the police's initial description.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/05/avoiding_intrusion.html
Not that accurate judging by the accompanying photo on May 10.
It just doesn't add up.
Thinking aloud here.
Maren
P.S.
Agnos @2 March 2016 at 11:33
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wow-factor
OT
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3471642/Did-Neanderthals-use-CHEMICALS-light-fires-Extinct-early-humans-ground-rocks-powder-make-wood-flammable.html
OT
https://rubylee1776.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/jonbenet/
Maren @8:34
BBC: "Madeleine was wearing pink Eeyore pyjamas when she disappeared"
(photo of the ‘button’ ones)
Why, on May 10, change the photo into 'Amelie’s' pyjamas if the photo on May 8 reflects the identical ones, the pyjamas Madeleine was wearing?
Regarding the photo on May 8 (Algarve Resident), we have to consider where it and the BBC photograph came from. In the case of the AR (because they told us) and the BBC (most likely) it was M&S. Later on the retailer sent a pair of (no button) pyjamas to the PJ, whose photographs inevitably look similar. And yet the 'official photograph' they put out on 10 May does not?
Never mind whose name you give them - the clothes are different, hence the 'official' picture was not produced by the PJ (who would not have undertaken the same photography twice in any case).
"We passed on the accurate details of Madeleine's pyjamas, at the family's request, correcting the police's initial description.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/05/avoiding_intrusion.html
"Not that accurate judging by the accompanying photo on May 10."
All the media cared about was the pink 'Eeyore' aspect to the things. That was sufficient to label them identical when, as you rightly observe, they were not. It was the McCanns who were desperate to feed the 'correct description' to the media ('Eeeyore' versus plain white). The police had not in fact given ANY description to the media beforehand - the specifics were only understood by searchers on the ground on Thursday night/Friday morning.
My contention is that the 'official photograph' emerged via the McCanns, not the PJ. The McCanns bought their pyjamas a year earlier. Those pyjamas had a button and were photographed - with a button. They only became 'Amelie's' with Kate McCann's pre-emptive explanation on Crimewatch ("These are Amelie's, they're a little bit smaller"), the trousers draped in such a way as to foreshorten perspective, and afterwards at an interview inside the (Dutch?) Hilton, where she goes into quite unnecessary detail about Madeleine's t-shirt being bigger and not having a button (as if it mattered).
Fundamentally,in light of Anonymous yesterday (16:33 - who wanted a synopsis of goodness knows what):
If Kate McCann took the official photograph of Madeleine's pyjamas, but could not bear to use her camera after she had taken that last photograph, what does that tell you?
Regards
M.R.
Anonymous @ 09:46
"Neanderthals-use-CHEMICALS-light-fires"
They're still inflaming people on 'Twitter' and elsewhere.
Maren @08.34,
Thank you! I never imagined that a set of PJs could inspire so many categories of thought!!
Ag.
Anonymous 3 March 2016 at 10:31
I have imported the video Cristobel linked to.
It is staggering.
http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/03/john-and-patsy-ramsey.html
M.R. @10:34
Thanks again. M
Updated: 8 May 2007
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic10155.html
Ag(nos) @10:47
You might be even further surprised if I suggest to you that the right images, viewed in the right way, contain hints here and there of where they were taken, approximately when, and by whom - even the the relative position of the photographer at the time!
'Hints', I hasten to add, not 'proof' - but there is such a concept as 'circumstantial evidence' is there not?
Thanks for your earlier intervention btw. I do believe you 'get it'.
Regards
M.R.
Maren 03.03.16 @08:34
“Agnos @2 March 2016 at 11:33
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wow-factor”
Bravo, Maren, bravo, it’s very touching.
What’s a sweetheart like you doing in a ‘dump’ like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpRKstHl7Y0 Dylan at 3.17 and the following solo (Orianthi?) is rather breathtaking.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6p9cBA7B9o&ebc=ANyPxKoPsXtmUo_2LPhYbgRBoI6OflcvAbYkobZYP2W94XqGcbG0vF74tGCfGl43WzF2MtuWmeHE
I saw Dylan performing live at the time of ‘Infidels’, though it must have been before Orianthi was born . It was the best and most memorable performance I’ve ever been to, and I've been to more than a few.
Agnos is special. I sign to that, and I think you do.
What a sweet touch!
Thank you so much.
Thank you so much.
Regards
Martin @12.26
That sounds fascinating. And when we consider the resources made available to OG it becomes ever more curious that we are still here.
I wonder whether anon@(Iron Duke) was touching upon this broader question of what can be achieved by any of this. Perhaps all of "us" have asked the same. My only response would be to say that the question of Madeleine's disappearance may never be resolved. A consensus of opinion might even be too much to hope for. But if the "abduction thesis" is that which is to be countered, then at least one resource open to "us" is to keep asking, and to keep trying to extend the relevance of the question: then what did happen? It is sad to think that that question should require any justification in the asking - and this is nine years on.
Regards as always,
Agnos
Anon @13.25,
You are far too kind! I have a friend who spent a few years in the US studying art. He still says that Dylan's harmonica is the height of American culture! Just one "wail" is enough! I wouldn't argue.
Agnos
Anon @13:25
I remember the golden rule.
Thanks for the links. Lyrics spring to mind.
Here comes the story of the Hurricane
The man the authorities came to blame
For somethin’ that he never done
Put in a prison cell, but one time he could-a been
The champion of the world
Regarding ‘dump’ and Himself’s other blogs, I’ll quote Agnos (does he know he has a fan club?): Knowledge is always a work in progress.
Kind regards,
Maren
Agnos 03.03.16 @13:44
“You are far too kind!”
I can only assume that you are following convention in saying the above, but I appreciate your intent very much. I hope you would agree that what is important is not that which is said, but that which is done, and it’s your ’doing’ I’ve pointed at in my message to Maren.
Kindness has no measure, in its ‘suchness’ or as one’s attitude towards another. This is where I’m at. Where you a sailor, the blind might wish to be sailors too.
“Kind and mysterious” (rtgr, bless her/him) remark is reaching the tip of my tongue. And the Wyatt’s lines are echoing in my mind. And certain rules, even when broken, remain golden.
“I have a friend who spent a few years in the US studying art. He still says that Dylan's harmonica is the height of American culture! Just one "wail" is enough! I wouldn't argue.”
Would you be so kind as to rephrase the penultimate sentence to avoid (my)
misunderstanding, or alternatively, indicate whether or not it is intended as a compliment. I know you know what you meant and I know you will know what I mean.
Please be assured that I read all posts carefully if I manage to get to them before they are made to disappear “with a flick of the wrist”.
Please do not hesitate to tell me if anything I say is unclear.
I’m most grateful.
Anon @16.12,
The penultimate sentence is indeed a compliment. Having absorbed all that he could of American culture/spirit (the great and the good), the artist-writer in question could say no more than - just listen to Dylan! i.e. He is the essence, of what might be found.
Kind regards,
Agnos
Agnos 03.03.16 @17:01
Many thanks.
Understood and appreciated. I am now in no doubt your friend new whereof he spoke.
Kind regards
Maren 03.03.16 @14:29
Since you’ve mentioned it:
Well don't know which one is worse
Doing your own thing or just being cool
Well don't know which one is worse
Doing your own thing or just being cool
You remember only about the brass ring
You forget all about the golden rule.
Quite coincidently I’ve just obliquely referred to the golden rule in my 16:12 post to Agnos.
Referring to a ‘dump’ rather playfully, I was not thinking of Himself. I was thinking of you, the lyrics of the song’s, and the Blog’s Dump. It also happens that I also think of these lyrics when I occasionally visit the local rubbish dump as well as on other occasions. I’ve certainly meant no disrespect.
For clarity, ‘It takes a sailor to see a sailor’ is the saying I had in mind in said post. I hope I had not just made it up myself.
‘All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy’ is another saying, definitely extant.
Kind regards and thanks again.
Maren 2.3 @21:40
"It’s an interesting journey."
If you'd like to travel a little further, why are 'Wet t-shirt' competitions popular with boys? (The answer has to do with 'clinging')
Bearing in mind that shadows only result when something obstructs the light, what could possibly have given rise to the sundry dark patches here(top-left in particular)?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-454029/Search-Madeleine--police-release-pyjamas-wearing.html
Nowhere are these pyjamas described as pink with dark bands.
"I didn't think of it at the time but the day Madeleine disappeared I noticed what I thought was a tea stain on her Disney pyjama top,' she says. 'I washed it without thinking..." (Kate McCann in 'madeleine')
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sod09c
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sod53c
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sod5jk
Katie!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3476979/KATIE-HOPKINS-Did-brave-young-men-graves-Cameron-Hollande-sauntered-obscene-Somme-photocall-REALLY-die-Prime-Minister-collude-foreign-country-sell-Britain.html
Martin R. @4 March at 10:37
A different (new to me) perspective.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_03/madjam_468x695.jpg
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00635/news-graphics-2007-_635209a.jpg
Talk about quite unnecessary detail, Kate McCann in ‘madeleine’ (3 May, before preparing some lunch):
I returned to our apartment before Gerry had finished his tennis lesson and washed and hung out Madeleine’s pyjama top on the veranda.
I’m busy contemplating.
Maren
Maren @22.37
These two versions together tell us virtually everything we need to know as regards 'who, when and where' - the 'third effect' if you will.
Regards
M.R.
M.R. @3 March at 10:34
“Regarding the photo on May 8 (Algarve Resident), we have to consider where it and the BBC photograph came from. In the case of the AR (because they told us) and the BBC (most likely) it was M&S.”
8 May 2007 (AR)
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic10155.html
8 May 2007 (BBC)
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42898000/jpg/_42898509_maddiepj.jpg
The ‘no button’ ones, different photographs. M
Jul 29, 2007
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MURAT+MOTHER'S+FURY%3B+EXCLUSIVE%3A+Shocked+Jenny+says+Maddie+suspect+was...-a0166903584
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1391.0
?
M @13:33
Perhaps, then, the BBC did not solicit a photo from M&S after all, but took their own instead?
We might add to this the PJ's forensic photographs (no button), yet different again.
What matters are not the various, so-called 'identical' pictures published here there and everywhere, but the 'official' photograph released by the PJ on the 10 May, a copy of which appeared in the Telegraph:
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00635/news-graphics-2007-_635209a.jpg).
It is pallid, slightly out of focus, and the background colour is incompatible with ANY of the studio shots (AR, BBC, PJ). It reveals signs of parallax, as well as having been taken in ambient (day) light - again indicative of an amateur snapshot, NOT a studio effort.
The darker version published by the Daily Mail (clearly taken in the same session) holds a clue to the pyjamas' identity as 'Amelie's' (according to Kate McCann afterwards), and another that fixes the date (consistent with KM's own statement to Olga Craig of the Daily Telegraph):
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/04_03/madjam_468x695.jpg)
"I returned to our apartment before Gerry had finished his tennis lesson and washed and hung out Madeleine’s pyjama top on the veranda."
This quote, which you found in 'madeleine', places KM alone in 5A on the Thursday morning, with a pair of very damp pyjamas; an image which, I would contend, the Daily Mail version more clearly represents.
Q: How is it possible to achieve an 'out-of-focus' picture with an automatic camera?
Coincidentally (again) Kate's Canon PowerShot A620 camera was an evolved product, its predecessors being noted for random focussing errors!
All of this points to Kate McCann's having taken those photographs before the night of Thursday 3 May; photographs which would only have been of use in the search for her daughter, who had yet to go missing.
Just to add (for the benefit of any readers of the Pat Brown school of 'evidence before theory') I accumulated these observations literally years ago.
When trying to measure these pyjama tops on screen, I noticed some of the design elements appeared to be not quite vertical (the effect of parallax). That led me to look more closely at other aspects. The accumulated data speak to the issues of 'who, when and where', from which arises the $64000 question: 'Why?'
Regards
M.R.
Anonymous @13:55
From:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MURAT+MOTHER'S+FURY%3B+EXCLUSIVE%3A+Shocked+Jenny+says+Maddie+suspect+was...-a0166903584
Jenny added: "I pray Madeleine is found soon - for her parents' sake and for Robert's.
"It's the fairytale we dream of because only then will he be able to clear his name.
Oh FFS! 'Fairytale' it is.
From:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1391.0
"But she reported it to police a couple of days after Madeleine vanished and more than a week before anyone knew Robert would be questioned."
I bet she could hardly wait!
M.R. @15:09
Thanks again.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00635/news-graphics-2007-_635209a.jpg
As you say, an amateur snapshot. M
M.R. @15:32
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MURAT+MOTHER'S+FURY%3B+EXCLUSIVE%3A+Shocked+Jenny+says+Maddie+suspect+was...-a0166903584
Fairytale it is.
"Meanwhile, Kate and Gerry - from Rothley, Leics - spent yesterday with friends at an Algarve villa.
They are planning a series of events to mark 100 days if Madeleine is still missing on August 11."
I bet they could hardly wait.
M
l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com
6th March 2016
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Maddie_s_Mum_Mothers_Day.html
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Maddie_s_Mum_Mothers_Day.html
As regards Rachael 'resuscitation' Oldfield
It is one thing to state that doctors were plentiful, but clearly they would be of no fucking use to man nor beast if they were not around when the kid perhaps had an accident, didn't arrive back in time to resuscitate her!
Well said.
Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there..., Kate asked Fiona Payne.
What did Mrs Payne answer?
But not to worry, retired Met detective Andy Redwood had a revelation moment, one which saved Tanner's skin.
Just a way out for Tanner I think; it saved someone(s) else’s skin(s), but whose?
Good morning. M
http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.nl/2016/03/pat-brown-versus-richard-hall-on.html
Brown and Hall both make some valid points. Something in between perhaps? M
M @10:25
With certain reservations (say, a 'let' cord on the second service) I'd say Hall's in front 40:15.
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sodic8
Considering the abovementioned theory, why would the parents of Madeleine’s (almost) namesake (MR) agree? M
Anonymous (M) @18:02
"Considering the abovementioned theory, why would the parents of Madeleine’s (almost) namesake (MR) agree?"
I have absolutely no idea.
M.R.
Separated at birth?
Retired Surgeon Gynaecologist to the Royal Family, Sir Marcus Setchell: http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/12/04/article-2242878-1658F495000005DC-386_306x423.jpg
Misogynist Pensioner, Tony Bennett MA: http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/ds070213.JPG
The Queen's former gynaecologist Marcus Setchell?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R99C4L-w_CY
Anonymous @07:01/07:17
The temptation to 'wisecrack' is considerable. Out of a sense of decorum I shall refrain (see me in the bar later).
Anonymous @08:39
Oops! The film was withdrawn from this blog for reasons of inaccuracy.
M.R. @09:57
Trying to separate the wheat from the chaff, I wonder why a top PR man had to get involved in selecting photos given to the police? M
March 9, 2014
http://wikileaks-press.info/paraguay-washingtons-war-against-growing-marxist-insurgency/
Martin Roberts 09:57
“The film was withdrawn from this blog for reasons of inaccuracy.”
Just like those WBM captures?
In addition to @12:20
McCanns' photos might hold "the missing part of the jigsaw" of course.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6677803.stm
Jim Gamble, of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) Centre, said: "No matter how small or insignificant the information may seem to you, it could be the missing part of the jigsaw, so let us decide if it is important.
"We are looking for anyone who was at the Ocean Club Resort or surrounding area in the two weeks leading up to Madeleine's disappearance on 3 May, who have photographs that might help our work."
M @12:20/14:37
"I wonder why a top PR man had to get involved in selecting photos given to the police?"
Genuine concern over photographs, as you rightly point out. Maybe there's someone out there with an interior view of 'Chaplin's' that shows GM in the background (or something else equally inappropriate)
Anonymous @14:14
Do you mean these? (scroll down)
http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2015-08-15T12:31:00%2B01:00&max-results=50&start=25&by-date=false
Martin Roberts 16:47
No, I don’t, I mean the original WBM files, not the posts and pictures at the link you provided. Thanks for the link, I already had it. About three hour ago there was a post on CMoMM by a new guy (Abracadaver) who was ecstatic about your writings (and rightly so). I was just abuot to post a link for you but the post is no longer where it was, The guy made a ‘shutters’ mistake (or could have been just taking the piss) in his long, very well-written post, a couple of very encouraging comments followed, the third, TB’s, I found rather offensive and I suspect so would Abracadaver unless he was ready for it. I’ve just spent about 15min trying to find that post, it ain’t there. I’ll search later. If you come across it, Id love to have a copy please. Wooshing of WBM kind must have been contagious.
Anonymous @16:47
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Sorry too that I seem to have missed the CMoMM post completely. Maybe admin. there have shifted it to some out of the way corner of their universe (or scrubbed it completely if it didn't meet with the committee's approval). Difficult to say really. I like the poster's pseudonym though ('Abracadaver' indeed).
I'll bear your ? in mind, in case I should spot something of relevance over there.
Regards
M.R.
M.R 22,21
Thanks, I would appreciate it, Abracadaver indeed.
Anon @20:08/M.R.@22:21
This post?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:d_YS79dagFcJ:jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12536-mystery-solved-we-ve-already-been-told-who-the-abductor-is+&cd=6&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=nl
M
P.S.
What a phenomenal writer that man is.
M
Hello H. As you say. M
https://twitter.com/TeddyShepherd/status/707844224687980546
M @09 :29
Fancy that, I’ve just been searching for it now. How did you find it? I’m not a CMoMM member and not about to become one, perhaps being a member would help?. Are you able get hold of the comments I was referring to in my earlier post? One of the three comments that were there, I think the first, was from a moderator, welcoming in intent, The second was also pleasant. Then TB tuned in seemingly having forgotten the Golden Rule and the St Paul’s potent reminder he appends to his posts: "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, think on these things..." (I’m not a preacher btw).
Thanks, your help is appreciated
M @09.38,
Seconded...again!
Agnos
(...shortly after we arrived?)
M 09:38
What a phenomenal writer that man is.
That seems to have been on of the comments.?
Thanks
M @09:29
That's some kind of 'Magic Wand' you've got there! Thank you for coming to the rescue, as you have done so often it's almost embarrassing.
@09;38
Now I'm embarrassed.
Agnos @10:22
'Shortly after we arrived'?
Not as improbable as it might seem perhaps. How long is a piece of string? How short is 'shortly'? And if we adopt the idea that the poor lass spent a measure of time upstairs in 5J then we start to move nearer the beginning of the week than the end.
Regards all
M.R.
Obelisks and Hezbollah : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_Frontier
Who dat livin' in a tent under a highway in San Fran?
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/feb/17/san-francisco-tech-open-letter-i-dont-want-to-see-homeless-riff-raff
Anon @10:16
Neither am I a CMoMM member or any other forum member, and not about to become one. I only read occasionally. I found it by chance ('googled' some keywords).
The content can only be read 'in cache'. Original posts here (I think):
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12536-mystery-solved-we-ve-already-been-told-who-the-abductor-is
Alas, I couldn't find the comments you refer to.
Regards. M
10 March 2016 at 11:21
One of my earliest and most lasting memories of Ameriki was in Buffalo NY. (the arsehole of NY State)
The bloke could have been drunk or he could have been dead, irrespective, he was there on the sidewalk to be stepped over.
That and the bloke (security) lounging against the rail at a drag meet near Niagra falls NY. I say bloke, but it was more the open holstered cannon he had strapped to leg.
For a young fellow-my-lad, still wearing underwear that was washed in the UK, quite an eye-opener I can tell you.
Fuck America.
Anon @10:26
Not in the comments, it was in Abracadaver's post:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:d_YS79dagFcJ:jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12536-mystery-solved-we-ve-already-been-told-who-the-abductor-is+&cd=6&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=nl
followed by:
His lacerating irony and razor-sharp wit is right up my street. Some of his 'punchlines' are absolutely brutal. In a good way you understand.
I do agree, in Dutch, in the literal meaning. M
10 March 2016 at 11:21
The last section of this post. Two short vids, the first one is not imperative. What a society!
http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2011/04/louisianas-fucked-up-arse-laws.html
M @11:36, 11:58
Grateful for your comments and links. Having stumbled upon Abracadaver’s post, my immediate thought was why wasn’t Abracadaver posting on the blog where M.R. himself could comment. Like yourself, I am not a member of any congregation.
“Not in the comments, it was in Abracadaver's post”
I have figured that. My mistake. One of the comments was similar.
“I do agree, in Dutch, in the literal meaning.” ?
M.R @10:56
“Now I'm embarrassed.”
Embarrassing but true. No “grains of sand” under Abracadaver’s microscope!
Agnos
Cautiously:
Napoléon had more ‘metal’ in him than the Iron Duke (of Wellington) (no disrespect for the Duke). Admittedly, I know more about Napoléon than about the Duke.
Pas ce soir, Agnos, as much as I like you.
Thanks to all
Anon @13:13
I mean I do agree with Abracadaver’s post. A well written comment, in English. I could have said something along those lines, in Dutch, but who would understand it?
As for the literal meaning ‘in Dutch’ I mean the language, not ‘in trouble’.
It is some sort of inside joke or so I think. Anyway, my intentions are good, please don’t let me be misunderstood.
Regards, M
M
@11.36
Your link (http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t12536-mystery-solved-we-ve-already-been-told-who-the-abductor-is) re-directs to a log-in page at http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/login?redirect=%2Ft12536-topic
Your link is likely to be to the thread I found yesterday: the name of the thread within the link tells me so. I would assume that the thread had been moved to a ‘members only’ part of the forum or disposed of in its entirety.
@13:45
I ‘get it’ now. I do not doubt your intentions. If ever there is a misunderstanding, we can sort it I’m sure. Please do not hesitate to question me. Dutch would be ‘double Dutch’ to me indeed.
Many thank
'Overheard' elsewhere:
"Just before I go, and while on subject of twitter, what am I to make of this wonderful tweeter who is offering to assess your mental health online and free of charge? By way of a thank you for offering this service I would like to offer this tweeter a remote diagnostic assessment of their computer H/D (free of charge of course),it would be rude not to."
Brilliant!
M.R.
Kate McCann in ‘madeleine’(pp. 67/68)
“Here is another of those vivid, now cherished memories: Madeleine, in her Eeyore pyjamas, sitting on my lap and cuddling in – something of which she was especially fond when she was tired. We were on one of the two blue sofas, the one facing the patio doors, with Sean and Amelie to our right.”
Blue sofa?
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00635/news-graphics-2007-_635209a.jpg
Just a thought. M
M,
Blue sofa?
Same thought?
Agnos
The Mail's link with the same photo.
M/Agnos
You're catching on. 'Upholstery' is of course what seats are usually covered with.
Apartment 5A was indeed furnished with sofas covered in a blue, plain-weave fabric, unlike the Payne's apartment, where the furniture had the sheen of a 'velour', i.e. a fabric with a 'nap' (like the baize on a snooker table).
Such shadows as appear in the pyjama photos are cast to the left (which means the subject was lit from the right). The parallax suggests that whoever held the camera was not standing directly over the clothing, but viewing it at a shallower angle than 90 degrees (probably in order to frame the entire ensemble).
With this in mind it is possible to estimate where the photographer might have been standing, and in relation to what piece of background apparatus.
What it all comes down to, regardless of whether one describes the pyjamas as Madeleine's, Amelie's, Kate's or Gerry's even, is that any daytime photography inside 5A MUST have been undertaken before Madeleine's disappearance was announced.
The photographs which have pre-occupied me, literally for years, can have served only one purpose, i.e. to promote the search for a missing child - one whose absence had yet to be discovered.
It all points to the anticipation of events, which can only be reconciled as having followed in the wake of prior events. How long prior is of course a further topic for debate (although Kate wanting to use the washing machine on Monday affords us a clue). Personally I remain to be convinced that the child was actually in 5A that Thursday night.
Martin @00.43
You have a Flemish eye for detail! No higher praise!
Agnos
Agnos @07:29
Akin to realizing the significance of the 'Pearl Earring' I suppose.
Looking back, I recollect my other half (and passing offspring) viewing me askance, no doubt thinking me as eccentric as Barnes Wallis and his marbles, while I brandished a ruler at the computer screen, then aftwerwards, and more reasonably, at paper print-outs of version 1, verson 2 - version n of the images.
I was fixated on the clothing, with a 'hunch' that they held a clue of some kind, but couldn't get past the donkey's being an odd shape and the letters 'falling over backwards'.
It was while at close range, so to speak, that I noticed the weave in the background (thank goodness for a brief spell in the textile industry!) and thought 'What IS that?' The 'Eureka moment' folIowed a visit the other apartments (in the cinematic company of Eddie and Keela).
Despite all that, and the interval of time in-between (during which NM, bless his soul, stoically resisted publishing these data, and for reasons I never quite grasped), it is Maren who only very recently 'sealed off the trail', with that quote of Kate's which puts her alone and unaided inside 5A at an appropriate time.
I'm glad now that I made a nuisance of myself with 'H' over this, as IMHO Operation Grange is not long for this world, and coming out with these observations once the ledger is closed would be too late to be of any value at all. At least this way we can ratchet up the embarrassment if nothing else.
Kind regards
M.R.
Martin Roberts @00:43, 08:41
Agnos @07.29
Your posts and references are appreciated.
Thinking of “parallax”, ‘Pearl Earring’, and of seeing that in clear view which remains unseen unless one discovers a ‘special’ way of looking:
https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=https://artstor.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/anglig_10313766667.png&imgrefurl=https://artstor.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/a-closer-look-at-hans-holbeins-the-ambassadors/&h=1019&w=1017&tbnid=v_aQ8J0ThD43KM:&tbnh=160&tbnw=159&docid=UoZsiQyTFdQmSM&usg=__ficE3NKiXVsAJSPBJNORs0gE3ho=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiplLCI0bjLAhWEXw8KHWBsC0sQ9QEIIDAA
Many thanks to you both.
Kind regards
The Madness of Vermeer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-xGKQVrBdA
The Carivaggio in the same series ain't too shabby either.
Himself @13:14
Sure thing.
M.R.
Agnos
In my above post, please substitute thát for that “in …that in clear view…”
Many thanks to all
Oops! ...substitute thát for that in “…that in clear view…”
Himself,
Thanks for the link. I haven't seen these. Two of the greats!
On all things "camera" and painting - here's Hockney.
There are some I know who are more than a bit sniffy as regards Hockney - but, well, they're completely wrong!
Anon @12.51,
A strange coincidence. The French philosopher, Bruno Latour, whose Turing paper I linked to (about 1000 comments ago!) has also written about that very painting - and in the same vein of "facsimile and code." It's not an easy paper to recommend. There are dazzling moments (PDF), but it's certainly not his best.
Latour also co-curated this project (PDF)...just to prove that art-code-philo isn't such a mysterious mix!!
Thanks all,
Agnos
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/kate-mccann-urges-people-join-11029366
Comments.
Agnos 11 March 2016 at 14:54
Thank you for the Hockney link, I have it bookmarked.
The papers wouldn't really be my thing.
Visions of The Year 2000 ?
http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2012/01/visions-of-year-2000.html
Best
H
12 March 2016 at 09:06
Comments: Only the five?
H @09:31
11 comments up to now, including
Mrstitleist
What was missing people thinking in using such a bad example for the alert system? I think these parents are hiding something. There are millions of comments from people worldwide who have read the police files and say she actually killed her daughter by accident, then they hid the body to hide either bruising or sedation. There is even a doctor friend Of McCanns who accused them of sexually deviant behavior towards Madeleine.
I read it in police files a statement by Dr Katerina Gaspar given to Leicester police
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/kate-mccann-urges-people-join-11029366
HuytonFreeman
The Mcann's constantly spout, that there "is no evidence Madeleine has been harmed"
So, they do not consider that a stranger 'abducting' their daughter, and taking her away from her family for almost 9 years is harmful then??
In any case, the truth is that there is NO EVIDENCE of an abduction.
The Mcann's say that the abductor escaped through the bedroom window, and yet there is no evidence to prove this (lichen undisturbed by window and no fingerprints at all on the window, except KATE'S)
The Mcann's initially stated the shutters had been 'jemmied', when this was completely untrue, and they then changed their story to say the patio doors were unlocked.
If that's not enough to convince you. What kind of parent washes her missing child's favourite toy??
Late Medieval Cog raised from the river Ijssel near Kampen in Holland
http://www.medievalhistories.com/late-medieval-cog-from-kempen/
From a comment elsewhere.
http://www.epa.eu/crime-law-and-justice-photos/police-photos/british-missing-girl-photos-01005211
Date Created 05.05.2007
"displayed by the police, Portimao, Portugal, 10 May 2007"
And this one?
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00635/news-graphics-2007-_635209a.jpg
From comment Agnos: He has photographed what was on display.
I think so, too.
Commissioned by who? M
Thanks H @15:10 Mx
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiyrGVQqZGg
M,
I'm sure you will have looked already - LF has prominently photographed OG's "work" in Portugal.
Ag.
Ag. Thanks. M
http://bit.ly/1V1kTrR
The telegraph photo?
http://regex.info/exif.cgi?dummy=on&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F00635%2Fnews-graphics-2007-_635209a.jpg
Ag
M/Ag. @16:29
I don't know who managed to dump those EXIF data but well done. I've tried (and failed) doing just that.
However....unless I'm missing a trick here those data represent what is on record with the photo-library. Some of the numbers are of course technically relevant but no camera on earth knows whose holding it FFS!
Furthermore, among the IPTC data, the date and time of release suggests the image was distributed around 9/10 a.m. on 10 May(counting backwards nine hours or so). BUT THE PJ DIDN'T HOLD THEIR PRESS CONFERENCE UNTIL 6.30 p.m. that evening!!!
The countback in respect of the date created is also wrong (it's likewise c. 9 hours earlier but further down the listing the time of creation is given as 23.00, i.e. 11.00 p.m. (the time reported in my Microsoft Office synopsis btw.
Call me cynical but something in this is not to be trusted (I've yet to figure out exactly what).
Thanks and regards to whoever came up with the numbers
False alarm I think.
Another photo that is described as created on the 5th, and yet the description says May 10th.
epa01005214 Police officer Olegario Sousa speaks during a press conference in the police headquarters in Portimao related to the case of Madeleine McCann, the three year old British child, who went missing last week in the Ocean Club village of Praia da Luz, Algarve, southern Portugal, 10 May 2007. EPA/LUIS FORRA
And another. Created on the 5th...description says the 10th.
Put "Luis Forra Police" into the eap search. He has 3 "McCann" photos that are "created 05.05.07"...and in each case the description contradicts this with a date of "10th May 2007"
The exif data for "time" is all over the place...all of the time! But the date 05.05.07 consistently pertains to a description of 10.05.07.
Regards all
Agnos
(Problems posting so this might keep appearing!)
M.R./Ag.
http://www.epa.eu/crime-law-and-justice-photos/police-photos/british-missing-girl-photos-01000091
http://www.epa.eu/crime-law-and-justice-photos/police-crime-photos/british-girl-missing-photos-00999817
Photographer ?
Date created ?
M
Thanks M
And I double checked.
There are ONLY 3 photos dated 05.05.07 (that I can see!). The exif time of all 3 is 23.00.00!!
And the description for all 3 states: 10.05.07
A glitch?!
Ag.
Ag./M
My hearty thanks to you both.
Naturally I have a (slight) bias in these matters, but with Luis Forra credited with photographs he clearly did not take (i.e.,mini Madeleine) as well as events being recorded on 5 May that did not take place until five days later, I think it safe to reject the Forra did it on 5 May argument as unsubstantiated.
The case, as advanced, remains open!
I am very grateful to you both. Domesticity, including the ceaseless attention-grabbing demands of a small dog, has severely disrupted my own doings this evening (I doubt that I'd have arrived where both of you are as quickly in any case).
Lastly, please forgive the occasional 'typo'. I can spell really but when rattling away at speed I'm always likely to fall foul of a homophone or two (who's/whose being the case in point).
'Un abrazo a los dos' as they would say in the Missus' country.
M.R.
Ag. @19:41
"A glitch?"
I blame the Wayback Machine myself.
More seriously, if the team were aware of the EXIF problem in the context of the 'last photo' (which was on Kate's camera) there is no reason why they should not have been equally concerned to 'sanitize' other time-sensitive records.
The sun does not appear in the heavens at 23:00 - even in Portugal. Unfortunately for the McCanns it hardly appeared at the scheduled time either!
Just by the by it was a local pro photographer who, years ago, suggested to me that the pyjama pics were taken in 'ambient light', as he put it, i.e. during daytime. I think in any case that Luis Forra would have done a much better job across the board than is in evidence in those pictures.
Cheers
M.R.
Martin,
Yes, and I think LF was perhaps doing what many photographers do: photographing posters and "releases" to get them back as quickly as possible(?) (The px data could suggest a "crop" to that effect)
That all of his May 10th descriptions carry the same erroneous date and time closes the argument for me.
The Mail photo gives nothing at all:
http://regex.info/exif.cgi?dummy=on&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2007%2F04_03%2Fmadjam_468x695.jpg
And as you know the Getty pic was created "May 10th":
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/license/74119679
And just to reiterate the telegraph is issued"May 10th":
http://regex.info/exif.cgi?dummy=on&imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fi.telegraph.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F00635%2Fnews-graphics-2007-_635209a.jpg
FWIW, there is no doubt in my mind that they are amateur snaps!
Kind regards,
Ag.
(And I thought it was going to be another sleepless night!)
Not to mention - what would "Forra's photo" be doing tagged onto Kates' views of the harbour? Without so much as an identifying label?
Thanks all
I can put my feet up and watch the footie now!
http://www.epa.eu/crime-law-and-justice-photos/police-photos/british-missing-girl-photos-01004829
http://www.epa.eu/crime-law-and-justice-photos/police-photos/british-missing-girl-photos-01004828
2 more created "05.05.07" at "230000". It was a busy time!
And the "descriptions" say May 10th.
http://www.epa.eu/crime-law-and-justice-photos/police-photos/missing-british-girl-photos-00999982
http://www.epa.eu/crime-law-and-justice-photos/police-crime-photos/missing-british-girl-photos-01000212
From another place:
Tell you what, why don't you contact Mr Forra and ask him about him taking the pyjama photos
She can't be serious.
And while we're on the subject of 'photos':
http://www.epa.eu/crime-law-and-justice-photos/crime-photos/police-to-close-maddy-case-photos-01401119
A file videograb picture with unknown date showing the missing British girl Madeleine McCann
Regards. M
M @08:10
Frankly I think she's '5th column' (see my own lengthy response)
Thanks for bringing in the cavalry together with Agnos!
Kind regards
Martin R.
M/Ag.
In the light of developments 'Himself' has seen fit to delete comments elsewhere concerning Luis Forra.
I have saved everything to USB just in case, including your various revealing and explanatory links.
Different outdoor photographs, at different places, and all captured at 11.00 p.m. - The man's not a photographer he's a magician. He must have seen 'The Prestige' the year before.
regards
M.R.
Martin,
Thanks, that is reassuring. I've made a few screen captures myself - from the epa site. But if yourself / "himself" do likewise we're ok!
Kind regards to all,
Ag
The Art of the Impossible: MC Escher and Me - Secret Knowledge
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7kW8xd8p4s
H@20.34,
What a wonderful half hour!
Ag
Talk about misinfo.
http://bit.ly/1pojoZ0
http://bit.ly/1RYydKL
Authority worship
http://bit.ly/1UajtLW
That’s why, imho. M
http://bit.ly/21qfsCl
Sentimentality doesn't help "Maddie", I should add.
Anonymous/M
Ironically I became aware of this ongoing tirade at its very onset.
"I proved categorically that Forra took that photo for the PJ"
The only thing that's in the process of being proved categorically is, well...I'll leave that with you. Madeleine, of course, being beyond help of any description.
Ag. @15:37
In the course of acting further upon your suggestion I noticed something rather curious.
I needed one particular image from within the EPA resource to complete the set associated with your own and Maren's links. (It is important, since the date referred to in the description is one which can be confirmed through other means, i.e. one doesn't have to trust the caption implicitly and absolutely - we know exactly what happened on that date).
Unfortunately, although I'd seen it the once I forgot where, so I went searching. En route I viewed a couple of Forra photographs at random and noticed that the creation dates matched the description dates (i.e. the date of the event) perfectly.
It's too late to be doing so tonight, but I think I shall sample a few more of Luis Forra's photos, because it prompts in me the question of why, in connection with Madeleine McCann, the information archived in relation to his early efforts is so wrong.
For example: He takes a photo of Olegario Sousa addressing the press on 15 May and the pic. is 'created' on 15 May. Yet an almost identical picture of the same subject a handful of days earlier results in 10 May as described but 5 May as captured.
I sense something rotten in the state of Denmark (or should that be Portugal?).
M.R. @00.10/Ag.
Portugal (I sense). M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P-z5HJxr0o
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id163.html
"Interviewer: [interrupting] But that's why you decided, I'm sorry... that's why you decided to come home?
Gerry McCann: No.
Kate McCann: No, they could still have arrested us, couldn't they? They could have stopped us from going home.
Interviewer: No, not if you're here. [i.e. in the UK]
Kate McCann: No, but they could have stopped us from going home.
Gerry McCann: There was no, you know, we... Our departure was cleared with the authorities. We had told the PJ we were going to leave on that weekend and, after our interviews, our lawyer absolutely clarified: 'Were we allowed to go?' There were no bail conditions, and the next day we, through the British Consul, we asked if we could leave and the senior investigators were put to the question: 'Do you have any objections?' and the answer was: 'No'."
-------------------------------
14 May 2007
http://www.aparchive.com/metadata/youtube/93b63b485e33848c53b2164ba3dbfb0a
Luis Amado, Portuguese Foreign Minister:
"Certainly we are concerned. We are all concerned. I even had the possibility to speak with my colleague, Margaret Beckett. We have done all our best to have a solution for this situation. Certainly we will be working closely with our police and with the co-operation of British police in the next days and weeks if necessary to find a solution for this situation.
-------------------------------
"We have done all our best to have a solution for this situation."
Did they know that Madeleine was not 'a real, living and findable little girl'? M
Martin,
There is a clue (if not the answer) to what was happening with the dates. If you look at the entry for "caption writer" on all of those photos that we have identified (05.05.07, caption May 10th) then you see very distinctive data. Typically: JR/PC/MA PT/JS/TP ED
I haven't found a single other of Forra's photos that carry such distinctive strings as those identified.
Photos carry not only exif data, but also IPTC data. I have accessed IPTC for all of these (and screen saved!) "Caption writer" (my understanding) refers to the software used by the photographer to read-write the IPTC/exif data. It is the "writer editor" in IPTC format.
So! The writer/editor used to add the captions associated with these photos' IPTC data is distinctive and uniformly wrong with respect to the date. My guess would be that it is simply corrupted or erroneous data associated with the process of "captioning" the images.
Not least, we have photos captioned in relation to a Catholic mass (Sunday 6th?) with an entry for Saturday (5th) and a caption for Thursday (10th)!! Worth checking but that is what I see!
(All usual caveats!)
Regards,
Ag
H@20.34/Ag @21:14
http://www.mcescher.com/gallery/
Goedemorgen. M
Re the above (@7.18)
I meant to say: with an exif for Saturday (5th) and a caption for Thurday....
(In final sentence)
Ag
Morning M!
Post a Comment