FIRST photo

PeterMac wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:For information
Shortly before '60 Reasons' was published, I uploaded a final draft to the old Madeleine Foundation website.
I was strongly challenged on Reason 27 (which dealt with the issue of the photo of Madeleine, 'The First Photo', by a poster on 3As called 'nicked' - who purported to be a bona fide researcher, but was clearly a McCann-supporter. She was from Liverpool and believed to be a relative of Russell O'Brien.
Below is reason 27 from my book, together with 'nicked's response: 

Fascinating.
We have wondered for many years what it was about the 60 Reasons which caused them so much stress.   Most of it was fairly mundane (sorry, but you know what I mean) dispute over the entry they describe, windows not forced, shutters not broken and so on.

But clearly something in it really caused them alarm and panic, to the extent that the big guns were wheeled out, you had to be silenced, and the booklet "banned"

Was this it ? Right from the start, the First Photo could be proved to be a LIE ?
I don't know, obviously, I just ask.

PeterMac, has the first photo been discussed in-depth previously?  It's very interesting.

Knitted wrote:As an aside... It looks to me the photo of Madeleine might have been taken of her on the same sofa as shown in the below pic, (albeit at a different time).  If so then this further suggests the pic wasn't taken in Apt5a, (which is no surprise, as I think everyone agrees she appears younger than she was in May 2007!). Does anyone know whose house this was? If so is that in any way relevant?

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

My guess would be the Queniborough home with Gerry and cousin and Rothley for the other one based on a guess of Madeleine's age.

Both homes were new when they moved in and tend to have the same neutral decor i.e. light painted walls/blank canvas.

PeterMac wrote:"

Was this it ? Right from the start, the First Photo could be proved to be a LIE ?
I don't know, obviously, I just ask.

How so? Unlike the last photo that was tampered with (allegedly) for a purpose.

A lie is done for a reason/purpose. What could the purpose be for a LIE with the first photo?

...a lie in so far as it was not produced in the way explained in any statements? ... and if so, a lie if it was produced ahead of the abduction being announced... and if so, dishonest in so far as it wasn't a current photograph (i.e. not that week) and thus not as helpful as it might otherwise have been in identifying Madeleine.

aiyoyo 'took' the words right out of my mouth!

STOP, THIEF!

"A lie is done for a reason/purpose. What could the purpose be for a LIE with the first photo?"
-------------------------------------------------

The McCann's, imo, have never done 'something' without there being a 'reason/purpose' for doing it or behind it.

WHAT was the 'reason/purpose' for them, giving police, searchers, an out of date photo, of their child?

'Unrecognisable' to people at OC, PDL, on 4th May 2007.

There HAD to be a 'reason/purpose' for doing this.

Was the 'last' photo Madeleine ALREADY 'out of the area'? (scam, 'dead', hidden)

But logic 'dictates' if she was 'out of the area' there'd be no problem in releasing the 'last' (poolside) photo IMMEDIATELY (4th May 2007)

But  they didn't!

Not 'released' until May 24th 2007................THREE WEEKS 'after' the 'event'!

People would NOT have 'found' her, a day after, or 3 weeks after, or almost 8 years after!

Imo, they didn't want her, 'poolside' Madeleine, 'found' or people to 'be searching' for 'poolside' Madeleine.

WHY NOT?

Hence people given a totally 'misleading' photo of a much 'younger' Madeleine. (to 'look/search' for)

And, surprise, surprise, nobody found 'her'!

WHAT, or WHY, was the 'REASON/PURPOSE' the McCann's, consciously and diliberately, released the 'much younger, shorter haired' photo, who police/searchers would NOT have 'recognised', in PDL, of Madeleine?

Got to be one, right?

We've been going over the first and the last photos, provided -we think- by the Mecs themselves

But nowhere have we see a single picture of her by anyone else

Really, truthfully, I mean. As is: 'Look, here's little Maddy with her best friend E, or one or more of her umpteen quite similar creche-friends'

Nothing, zilch, nada. Not on the first day, not on the last day, not on any single day

Or have I been asleep?

Knitted wrote:...a lie in so far as it was not produced in the way explained in any statements? ... and if so, a lie if it was produced ahead of the abduction being announced... and if so, dishonest in so far as it wasn't a current photograph (i.e. not that week) and thus not as helpful as it might otherwise have been in identifying Madeleine.

Fair enough.  It is indeed a LIE if the production of it was not as stated in the depositions.
The pertinent question is why though?  
Why lie about the provenance of it?  It it was produced ahead of the abduction being announced, the implication of it is very obvious and a very serious one.

More importantly did AT lie for them?  If so, why?

As for it not being a current photograph, they did not claim/state it to be anything, let alone current.  They didn't write any message of their own on it.

They were shamefully dishonest when they used an out of date photo of Madeleine, when an up to date one would have been more useful in which to aid the identification of Madeleine.  
Again, that goes back to same question - what could be their motive for dispensing an outdated photo?  Most normal parents of average IQ and even of low IQ would have rejected using an out-of-date photo for poster when it is a critical matter of life and death where finding their missing child is concerned.  More normal people desperate to find their missing child would know the importance and would be mindful to put out correct reflection of their child's current look, so why not this pair of well educated well above average intelligent doctors?  What were they thinking when they had the pool photo with them all along and could have used it?

PeterMac wrote:
INteresting that none of the other photos we have been offered have times and dates attached . . .

Just this stand out oddity in itself is enough to raise the red flag.

It therefore means that the tennis photo must have been on the Olympus camera, the one without date and time set.
If it is found that tennis photo had been extracted from the Canon Camera, it would be bingo moment, justifying enough reason for SY to haul them in for questioning.

What were they thinking when they had the pool photo with them all along and could have used it?
----------------------------------------------------

They didn't want 'ANYONE' lokking for, searching for, 'poolside' Madeleine?

As you rightly say...............WHY NOT?

They gave, consciously and diliberately, the Portuguese POLICE and 'searchers' an 'out of date' photo!

No doubt 'expecting' people, and POLICE, to be 'focussed' on 'finding' that 'girl'

If, of course, it is/was all a scam' they couldn't 'risk' people possibly 'recognising' the ACTUAL 'poolside' Madeleine being erm, taken to her 'luxury lair', could they?

Possibly, on her way 'back' to the UK?

KM, "I just feel closer to Madeleine here in Portugal, I mean I might be wrong, she might be closer to the UK."

If i were 'given', on 4th May 2007, the 'younger, shorter haired' photo i wouldn't be looking for the 'older, longer haired' girl, would i?

"LOOK HERE, NOT THERE"!

PeterMac wrote:

DATED photographs indicated that she had the CANON.  Was this when she realised that by altering the date they could claim the Last Photo had been taken on 3/5/7 at lunchtime, rather than on the Sunday ?   And what other photos are there ?  Why have we not been given those, with times and dates . . .  ?   (Rhetorical question, obviously !)

In Plural (in her own word)
Either she was lying in her book, or there must be more than one holiday photos on the Canon Camera.
That begs the question  - why the poolside one is the one selected, and what happened to the rest of the photos?

As well as being an alibi photo to show that M. was alive and well, it's also an alibi for Gerry (in case he has been seen wandering elsewhere with a blue bag), and also for Kate ( photographer) in case she was seen in corner shop buying cleaning products.

In short, it is an alibi photo for the entire family.
Which leads me to think maybe they didn't take any photo of Kate or Gerry independently, except with the children, and this is the only one that can provide Gerry an alibi for their purpose.

Gerry was taken in to be interviewed while I remained downstairs. I made use of the long wait I anticipated by sitting down with a notebook, pen and my camera, containing dated photographs of the holiday, and trying to write a detailed account of everything that had happened the week before.

Hello.... Scotland Yard... hello.....

Anybody there?

Good Heavens, you do touch upon something big here!

GM hiding in full view of us all

Also: real time photo op should be able to be deduced: the only moment when Sean wasn't with the rest of the family, possibly alone in the creche?

Softly softly, catchee monkey!

Portia wrote:Good Heavens, you do touch upon something big here!

GM hiding in full view of us all

Also: real time photo op should be able to be deduced: the only moment when Sean wasn't with the rest of the family, possibly alone in the creche?

Softly softly, catchee monkey!

It was lunch break for the children, so no, Sean couldn't be in the creche. Could be with Kate.
But Sean is not important in their scheme of things or for the Police.
It's only Maddie and her parents whereabouts that are important for Police to know.

aiyoyo wrote:

Knitted wrote:...a lie in so far as it was not produced in the way explained in any statements? ... and if so, a lie if it was produced ahead of the abduction being announced... and if so, dishonest in so far as it wasn't a current photograph (i.e. not that week) and thus not as helpful as it might otherwise have been in identifying Madeleine.

Fair enough.  It is indeed a LIE if the production of it was not as stated in the depositions.
The pertinent question is why though?  
Why lie about the provenance of it?  It it was produced ahead of the abduction being announced, the implication of it is very obvious and a very serious one.

More importantly did AT lie for them?  If so, why?

As for it not being a current photograph, they did not claim/state it to be anything, let alone current.  They didn't write any message of their own on it.

They were shamefully dishonest when they used an out of date photo of Madeleine, when an up to date one would have been more useful in which to aid the identification of Madeleine.  
Again, that goes back to same question - what could be their motive for dispensing an outdated photo?  Most normal parents of average IQ and even of low IQ would have rejected using an out-of-date photo for poster when it is a critical matter of life and death where finding their missing child is concerned.  More normal people desperate to find their missing child would know the importance and would be mindful to put out correct reflection of their child's current look, so why not this pair of well educated well above average intelligent doctors?  What were they thinking when they had the pool photo with them all along and could have used it?

imo, they could not use any photos on either of the cameras as the 'poster' picture - either there werent any of Madeleine (and that would appear very strange ) or they needed some amendments made to the cameras i.e. something had to be hidden. Therefore they found themselves in a position where they had to use a photo of Madeleine that Gerry or Kate had in their wallet / purse. Hence it was an old photo, out of date, and not from either camera. They had to have this ready immediately so noone could start looking at their cameras... in other words they were pre-empting a request for a photo - and immediately said - here - use this please..

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


How can these be photos of the same child? The hair colour is too different. The older looking one has blonde hair while they younger looking one has brown hair. While very young children in the UK sometimes start out blonde and then turn brown haired, it does not happen the other way round.

I also don't think the older child on the left of the photo looks like other photos (for instance the alleged 'last' photo) of Madeleine. The face and smile are different as well as the hair colour.

I have posted this previously, but it seems relevant to this discussion, that perhaps some of the photos used were of Kate as a child...

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


How can these be photos of the same child? The hair colour is too different. The older looking one has blonde hair while they younger looking one has brown hair. While very young children in the UK sometimes start out blonde and then turn brown haired, it does not happen the other way round.

I also don't think the older child on the left of the photo looks like other photos (for instance the alleged 'last' photo) of Madeleine. The face and smile are different as well as the hair colour.

There's another child sitting behind the older girl on Gerry's back. You can see their hand on the older girl's right arm. But the face behind her is very very weird. It looks like a mask. Just an observation.

That does look odd, I agree.

Maybe it's someone wearing a joke pair of glasses.

The kid just has their head tilted back and to their right. You can see right up their nostrils!

I've been thinking about this blond Madeleine on Gerry's back for a while now. I've mentioned this before in another thread (which died when I said it, so maybe I'm way off base), but I think this may be another Tapas child. There's one photo in particular from the set of black-and-white holiday photos that reminds me of this girl.

The child in the b/w photo seems to be very blond like the one on GM's back, and has a wide mouth like this girl. I don't know who the child is (I suspect Jane's daughter) in the b/w photo but I really see a resemblance between these two children and have wondered if it's the same girl (but not the same girl as the one we usually see depicted as Madeleine). I just can't see how her hair would appear so very blond in this one photo. Is there any other photo depicting her with such blond hair, especially indoors?

I agree that children rarely tend to become blonder as they grow, and they don't go from darker to lighter back to darker either. Yes, hair can lighten in the summertime but wasn't the photo with GM supposed to have been taken at Christmas?

I think the sofa and wall corner observations are very interesting. It does seem to fit.

Knitted wrote:As an aside... It looks to me the photo of Madeleine might have been taken of her on the same sofa as shown in the below pic, (albeit at a different time).  If so then this further suggests the pic wasn't taken in Apt5a, (which is no surprise, as I think everyone agrees she appears younger than she was in May 2007!). Does anyone know whose house this was? If so is that in any way relevant?

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

Is this the same sofa?
(from Pamalam)

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

Could the child right at the back whose face is mostly obscured be John McCann's son-(his daughter is holding Madeleine)? It is the angle  which makes the face look odd IMO.

worriedmum wrote:Could the child right at the back whose face is mostly obscured be John McCann's son-(his daughter is holding Madeleine)? It is the angle  which makes the face look odd IMO.

I think there is also a home video of this scene (or a similar scene) which shows Gerry clowning around with (allegedly) Madeleine and two other children. Interestingly, in the home video the child who is supposed to be Madeleine does NOT look like the blonde child in this photo. She is younger and has browner hair. I think that in the home video it could actually be Madeleine McCann. However also shown in the home video is the girl above and a boy - both John McCann's children, I do believe.

I have written before about a short sequence in that home video which shows the back of Gerry McCann's head with Madeleine facing him. The camera is thus focusing on Madeleine's facial reactions. At one point Gerry appears to turn his head away from her and Madeleine looks confused - worried even. At another point Gerry appears to have made a gesture to her along the lines of 'keeping secrets' as Madeleine is shown putting a finger in front of her mouth - as if to signal a shared secret.

I find that episode disturbing. As I also find disturbing home video scenes showing 'normal' family life chez McCann as depicted in the 'Madeleine was Here' series. Gerry's interactions with Amelie, in particular, I find creepy. And whoever filmed these little cameos used a similar technique to the one above whereby the back of Gerry's face is shown and the camera focuses on Amelie's facial expressions.

I'd lock GM up and throw away the key. Probably together with David Payne and a few other key 'players' including whoever filmed those creepy 'Madeleine was Here' scenes and took those deeply inappropriate 'Lolita' style photos of Madeleine.

The other photographic device so beloved of the psychotic (imo) Mcs and their acolytes is also illustrated in the photo above,  imo. 

It is the device of having a person in the photo almost (but not quite) obscured behind people in the foreground. Often to the extent where the facial features look distorted and/or most peculiar.

For instance, the face behind the cousin looks to me a little like the face of a clown. Now, this could simply be a quirk of the camera. But there are simply too many weird photos 'out there' for this to be a coincidence, imo. Every photo in Kate's ridiculous book 'Madeleine' is peculiar in some way, imo. 

I think that The Joker and his entourage like playing games and throwing out clues, threats and teasers. It's how they get their kicks. 

Then, when the little TM bag of tricks is scrutinized and starts to be exposed, TM rely on some down and dirty tactics to throw off their critics. 

These include: calling critics 'nutters', 'conspiracy theorists', 'trolls' and (they love this last one!) 'mean and nasty people taking advantage of poor blameless parents of an abducted child.' And of course they have silenced critics with law suits, gagging clauses and other tactics.

Why these odious people have been given such a platform beggars belief. 

IMO obviously!