Re: Amy Tierney and those mysterious 6" x 4" photos - Extracts from the research thread on 3As

[Guest]

Hmm. But one of the posters on that thread claims the camera used cannot download direct onto USB stick - a PC must've been utilised. So why not print the photos from the PC direct, why the need to locate a printer at all?

Is it right that neither the Canon nor the Olympus has this function?  It would fit in with my understanding of how cameras worked then. I don't believe those photos were printed that night at all, at least certainly not from a third party's printer, if they were already downloaded onto a memory stick.

Dee Coy, unfortunately all these technical details confound me, but please keep on seeking and discussing answers to these questions. The whole subject of the McCanns' cameras and photographs, the published photographs of Madeleine, and who handled the cameras/memory cards etc. after 3 May 2007 - and what they did with them and why - could almost form a whole book.

One of the key questions I'd like answering is how on earth a camera ended up at the home address of a Hampshire Constabulary Police Officer on the evening of Tuesday 8 May?

Quick work, and I'm not sure that Goncalo Amral and his team knew a lot about that episode.

We need true camera/photograph experts on the case

Right, I've done a bit of poking around into these products. I'm a complete technophobe so excuse the layman's language and please feel free to correct if I've got something wrong.

Firstly, there is no such printer as a Kodak Easyshare G60. There is a Kodak Easyshare G600, so I'm guessing this is the one.

The Kodak G600 printer is only compatible for downloading direct from a camera if that camera is a Kodak Easyshare model (i.e., neither an Olympus C-50 nor a Canon A620 could dock direct).

The G600 printer also DOES NOT have the facility to read direct form a memory card from any camera, see link here:

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

.... as it doesn't have a memory card slot. 

The ONLY way which this printer can print pictures from another manufacturer's camera is from a computer link via the USB port OR from a memory stick inserted into that USB port. See link here:

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



So the Memory Stick presented by RO'B was indeed a memory STICK and not a camera's memory CARD.

Now, I have also looked at the specs and reviews for both the Canon A620 and the Olympus C-50 and can find nothing that indicates either camera can download directly onto a memory stick, a computer must be used via a USB cable, provided the Olympus, but not necessarily with the Canon:

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

So, to conclude, the images MUST have been stored on a memory stick, either downloaded on the holiday via a PC with compatible software OR the memory stick was pre-prepared before the holiday, for them to have been printed on that model of printer.

The likelihood of them finding a compatible PC that night and rushing to do the download immediately after the disappearance is nil. Until the event of the disappearance, why else would they have had cause to deliberately find a computer during the holiday to download images that week? They surely wouldn't, they'd have waited like all holidaymakers with snaps to process, until the end of the holiday.

Which leaves.... the option that the stick was already prepared. Now why would that be? Any other answers?  

[Guest]

PeteMac That's an emphatic know!

[PeterMac]

Eta more:
The 'poster photo' is as seen above the one in the pink top. That is imo NOT the one allegedly printed by Tierney, that was the trademark Icon, as ROB said  'face on'  , he  adds her hair is longer there (well done for remembering that instruction ROB)
Her hais is longer in the iconic photo than in the pink top one.

Not sure I am understanding you correctly.
These are the two versions of the poster,
Portuguese
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />
English
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

Are you referring to the one from the front cover of the book ?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

That was released by the Press association on 4th, and was published widely on 5th.
So why was it not used for the poster ?

[Monty Heck]

Hmm. But one of the posters on that thread claims the camera used cannot download direct onto USB stick - a PC must've been utilised. So why not print the photos from the PC direct, why the need to locate a printer at all?

Is it right that neither the Canon nor the Olympus has this function?  It would fit in with my understanding of how cameras worked then. I don't believe those photos were printed that night at all, at least certainly not from a third party's printer, if they were already downloaded onto a memory stick.

Dee Coy, unfortunately all these technical details confound me, but please keep on seeking and discussing answers to these questions. The whole subject of the McCanns' cameras and photographs, the published photographs of Madeleine, and who handled the cameras/memory cards etc. after 3 May 2007 - and what they did with them and why - could almost form a whole book.

One of the key questions I'd like answering is how on earth a camera ended up at the home address of a Hampshire Constabulary Police Officer on the evening of Tuesday 8 May?

Quick work, and I'm not sure that Goncalo Amral and his team knew a lot about that episode.

We need true camera/photograph experts on the case

Right, I've done a bit of poking around into these products. I'm a complete technophobe so excuse the layman's language and please feel free to correct if I've got something wrong.

Firstly, there is no such printer as a Kodak Easyshare G60. There is a Kodak Easyshare G600, so I'm guessing this is the one.

The Kodak G600 printer is only compatible for downloading direct from a camera if that camera is a Kodak Easyshare model (i.e., neither an Olympus C-50 nor a Canon A620 could dock direct).

The G600 printer also DOES NOT have the facility to read direct form a memory card from any camera, see link here:

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

.... as it doesn't have a memory card slot. 

The ONLY way which this printer can print pictures from another manufacturer's camera is from a computer link via the USB port OR from a memory stick inserted into that USB port. See link here:

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



So the Memory Stick presented by RO'B was indeed a memory STICK and not a camera's memory CARD.

Now, I have also looked at the specs and reviews for both the Canon A620 and the Olympus C-50 and can find nothing that indicates either camera can download directly onto a memory stick, a computer must be used via a USB cable, provided the Olympus, but not necessarily with the Canon:

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

So, to conclude, the images MUST have been stored on a memory stick, either downloaded on the holiday via a PC with compatible software OR the memory stick was pre-prepared before the holiday, for them to have been printed on that model of printer.

The likelihood of them finding a compatible PC that night and rushing to do the download immediately after the disappearance is nil. Until the event of the disappearance, why else would they have had cause to deliberately find a computer during the holiday to download images that week? They surely wouldn't, they'd have waited like all holidaymakers with snaps to process, until the end of the holiday.

Which leaves.... the option that the stick was already prepared. Now why would that be? Any other answers?  

Interesting, thanks for such a comprehensive report DC.  The line in bold/red (mine) sums up the entire episode - farcical and without credibility.  A child is newly found missing and people are running around searching, the only sensible thing to be doing at that point other than contacting the police, but ROB has other ideas about the best use of one's time in such a situation.  Who indeed dowloads photos from a camera onto a memory stick via a computer which, from memory he did not specify how this was supplied to him, then set off to locate a printer.  As someone has pointed out, a Kodak Easyshare printer then had limited technological capacity and printing out a sizeable number of copies took considerable time and ink to produce.  How long did all this take and why devote so much time to doing this while locating the child as quickly as possible HAD to be everyone's priority.  K & G waiting until light to go out for a cursory search is a clear indication they had given up hope that she could be found at that point.  ROB's prioritising printing photos instead of searching were way too premature and at that point a complete waste of valuable time.  These behaviours, so far from the normal or expected at that time are what SY should scrutinise together with all of the technical evidence regarding the contenious photographs.   Their failure to do so and focus on this ridiculous parade of "suspects" and uncorroborated, 9 years too late claims of sexual assault in the same resort where the most famous missing child in the world disappeared, allegedly taken by a stranger are frankly ludicrous.

[noddy100]

I am surprised it took them a week to look at the camera I would have though it would have been the 1st thing as 
there could have been one of the many local odd bods in one of the pictures 'watching' them

[tigger]

Eta more:
The 'poster photo' is as seen above the one in the pink top. That is imo NOT the one allegedly printed by Tierney, that was the trademark Icon, as ROB said  'face on'  , he  adds her hair is longer there (well done for remembering that instruction ROB)
Her hais is longer in the iconic photo than in the pink top one.

Not sure I am understanding you correctly.
These are the two versions of the poster,
Portuguese
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />
English
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

Are you referring to the one from the front cover of the book ?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

That was released by the Press association on 4th, and was published widely on 5th.
So why was it not used for the poster ?

My understanding of the photos is that there always were two on that night, the red glossy 4x6 "  - about 30  of this one.
This is the one that Tierney allegedly printed a otherwise why make so many copies  when all you need is one to use for photocopying? i'd need to look at the statement of  the manager again who said they were photocopying the poster (which incidentally doesn't even mention her name!) .

Whereas this is ROB's statement:
Statement.
Okay. What kind of photo was it”?
Reply “The, it was a, it was a photo of err, it was the one that was being circulated in the, in the days immediately afterwards, I’ve seen so many photographs of her, of Madeleine since, I think it was a photograph that had been taken of her and a relatively number of weeks before and I think with a slightly different, slightly longer hair, erm but it was, it was a fa, it was a fa, it was a relatively full on sort of face on photograph, err and it was printed on a standard size erm four by six err inch, as you know, using the equipment that the people had and we ran off a number of copies of this, erm and several I think were given to the, the GNR”.

Which to my mind must be the Iconic image so belovedby the press.

The GNR officer who commented in his statement on the number of glossy photographs someone was seen holding does not mention iirc that any were handed to him. ROB says it was well before the PJ arrived, so that tallies with the officer's report.
The pink top one may have been one of posters copied by John Mills? And given to the PJ without the English text.
That's my reading of it. As the icon was the brand to be launched, no doubt the same photo was sent to the press by Jon Corner in the early hours of 4/5 - according to the US protocol for missing children. as Kate tells us in KH1.
Such foresight!

However, no idea to whom these iconic 4x6" were distributed. Olive press for one?

[diatribe]

Without wishing to appear obtuse, I can't see any significance in these pics. of Madeleine. If the McCanns had already disposed of their daughter's body, why would they feel the need to wrong foot the press, police et al regarding her appearance, after all, if the aforementioned were the case, she was never going to be found anyway. They could have given them a pic. of Shirley Temple for all the help it would have provided in finding an already dead child.

The only way doctoring old pics. of Madeleine would have benefitted the McCanns would have been to prove she had been on holiday with them in Portugal, when in fact she hadn't. If we are going down this route, we have to assume that not only were all their friends lying about her being there, but the Creche staff, the passport control authorities and anyone else who has attested to her presence in Portugal.

If anything, all the pics produced by the McCanns whilst in PDL would have been unhelpful to their hypothesis that they were being watched and set up, because not one of those pics.contained any background images of people who couldn't be accounted for.

What am I missing here?

[Guest]

quote the passport control authorities  unquote

I am not of the "Madeleine was not here" brigade, BUT any child could have traveled with this passport ...

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

[diatribe]

quote the passport control authorities  unquote

I am not of the "Madeleine was not here" brigade, BUT any child could have traveled with this passport ...

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

Okay, I'll concede that, Chatelaine, never having travelled with children, I was merely assuming that some kind of identification would be required, but that still leaves an awful lot of others who attested to her being in Portugal. Then there was the video of Gerry swearing, wasn't Madeleine included somewhere in that clip?

[PeterMac]

Without wishing to appear obtuse, I can't see any significance in these pics. of Madeleine.. . .

What am I missing here?

The significance of the Last PHoto and the over McEmphasis by Mitchell on looking at the time it was taken and seeing that it was one hour differrnt from the Uk and blah, blah, blah - all of the latter entirely irelevant-
is to show that Madeleine was alive and well at lunchtime on 3rd May.

As with anything Mitchell says, do not accept it until you have checked it with other independent sources and evidence, to ensure that it fits.
We did
And it doesn't.

And the only logical conclusion to be drawn from Mitchell's gibbering - is that Madeleine was NOT alive and well at lunchtime on 3rd.
By his actions he has dropped them right in it.
Ha, Ha, Ha.

[diatribe]

Without wishing to appear obtuse, I can't see any significance in these pics. of Madeleine.. . .

What am I missing here?

The significance of the Last PHoto and the over McEmphasis by Mitchell on looking at the time it was taken and seeing that it was one hour differrnt from the Uk and blah, blah, blah - all of the latter entirely irelevant-
is to show that Madeleine was alive and well at lunchtime on 3rd May.

As with anything Mitchell says, do not accept it until you have checked it with other independent sources and evidence, to ensure that it fits.
We did
And it doesn't.

And the only logical conclusion to be drawn from Mitchell's gibbering  - is that Madeleine was NOT alive and well at lunchtime on 3rd.
By his actions he has dropped them right in it.
Ha, Ha, Ha.

Thanks for explaining the significance of the last photo in relation to Mitchell, Peter. I'm afraid I can't even listen to Mitchell without an adequate supply of vomit buckets, never mind accept any of his verbal offerings as remotely resembling the truth. The only truthful statement he has ever made was on the lines of 'Its not for Kate and Gerry to prove their innocence, but for the police to prove their guilt.'

Nevertheless, although the last photo doesn't prove that Madeleine was alive at lunchtime, it doesn't prove she wasn't, all it in fact does prove is that Mitchell is a liar which is a matter that isn't in dispute. 

[Guest]

Does anyone know WHEN the cropped [and photoshopped] picture of Madeleine from the "Last photo" was exhibited at the church in PdL?

[PeterMac]

Nevertheless, although the last photo doesn't prove that Madeleine was alive at lunchtime, it doesn't prove she wasn't, all it in fact does prove is that Mitchell is a liar which is a matter that isn't in dispute. 

Absolutely correct.
The "proof" that she wasn't is however a permissible logical deduction from consideration of the lengths to which they went to prove that she was and the abject failure thereof.
Why did they feel the need to go to all that trouble, when they knew knew that one day they would be caught out.
Or perhaps Mitchell is too stupid, and the McCanns are too vain to realise that he had set an elephant trap.

[diatribe]

Why did they feel the need to go to all that trouble, when they knew knew that one day they would be caught out.

I'd guess it was a combination of vanity on their part and stupidity on Mitchells, as you so poignantly observed.

[Cristobell]

Nevertheless, although the last photo doesn't prove that Madeleine was alive at lunchtime, it doesn't prove she wasn't, all it in fact does prove is that Mitchell is a liar which is a matter that isn't in dispute. 

Absolutely correct.
The "proof" that she wasn't is however a permissible logical deduction from consideration of the lengths to which they went to prove that she was and the abject failure thereof.
Why did they feel the need to go to all that trouble, when they knew knew that one day they would be caught out.
Or perhaps Mitchell is too stupid, and the McCanns are too vain to realise that he had set an elephant trap.

It is good that Scotland Yard know about the last photograph, and of course all the other excellent work done by yourself Petermac, Tony and others from this forum. Presumably everything that is given to Operation Grange, must be logged and investigated. I hope they have Enid O'Dowd's financial reports too.

[PeterMac]

I hope they have Enid O'Dowd's financial reports too.

They do.

[Tony Bennett]

It is good that Scotland Yard know about the last photograph, and of course all the other excellent work done by yourself Petermac, Tony and others from this forum. Presumably everything that is given to Operation Grange, must be logged and investigated. I hope they have Enid O'Dowd's financial reports too.

That may be the good news.

The bad news is that I've heard on the grapevine that a lorryload of such inconvenient evidence was unfortunately shredded.

It is being said by some that that this was due to 'an oversight'.

Others say it is down to 'a lack of communication'

[Newintown]

It is good that Scotland Yard know about the last photograph, and of course all the other excellent work done by yourself Petermac, Tony and others from this forum. Presumably everything that is given to Operation Grange, must be logged and investigated. I hope they have Enid O'Dowd's financial reports too.

That may be the good news.

The bad news is that I've heard on the grapevine that a lorryload of such inconvenient evidence was unfortunately shredded.

It is being said by some that that this was due to 'an oversight'.

Others say it is down to 'a lack of communication'

No doubt copies were kept and can be sent again to "whoever shredded the evidence".

Tony, what is your thinking regarding the British Police going to PDL with the McCanns for the 3rd May anniversary.  Do you think they're all going to have a nice jolly cheap off-season holiday together or do you think there may be other serious matters to deal with bearing in mind a criminal act has taken place whether it's murder/accidental death covered up/abduction, I doubt none of the SY team are taking it lightly and are going to PDL for a few days sunning themselves on all expenses paid.

[Guest]

Without wishing to appear obtuse, I can't see any significance in these pics. of Madeleine. If the McCanns had already disposed of their daughter's body, why would they feel the need to wrong foot the press, police et al regarding her appearance, after all, if the aforementioned were the case, she was never going to be found anyway. They could have given them a pic. of Shirley Temple for all the help it would have provided in finding an already dead child.

The only way doctoring old pics. of Madeleine would have benefitted the McCanns would have been to prove she had been on holiday with them in Portugal, when in fact she hadn't. If we are going down this route, we have to assume that not only were all their friends lying about her being there, but the Creche staff, the passport control authorities and anyone else who has attested to her presence in Portugal.

If anything, all the pics produced by the McCanns whilst in PDL would have been unhelpful to their hypothesis that they were being watched and set up, because not one of those pics.contained any background images of people who couldn't be accounted for.

What am I missing here?

That's good clear thinking

[RIPM]

After much investigation, Mr Amaral came to the conclusion M died in 5a, on Thursday 3rd May 2007 sometime after 5.30pm.  The PJ came to the same conclusion and shelved the case.

Op Grange after much investigation have stated publicly on more than one occasion, M was certainly alive at approx 5.30pm on 3rd May.

So why does anybody believe any or all of the above will say, "oh!... we are stupid, it was another day, another time, a few bloggers have pointed it out."

It will never, ever happen.

The same regarding the poolside photo.   Redwood after meticulous investigation is satisfied it is the last photo and was taken at about 1pm on Thursday 3rd May 07.  He has placed this on the public record, for all the world to see.  Does anyone seriously think he will admit Op Grange has been fooled and he is totally incompetent?

The only thing Mr Amaral, the PJ and Op Grange do agree upon, is that M was alive at 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May

IMO the PJ have drawn the correct conclusion and there is NO co-operation with SY. Why would there be when SY are hell bent on smashing the  Portuguese tourist industry?

[diatribe]

The "proof" that she wasn't is however a permissible logical deduction from consideration of the lengths to which they went to prove that she was and the abject failure thereof.

 Whilst I appreciate that a PR spokesman's opinion on a potential piece of evidence can be used to sway public opinion in favour of their client, could it be used against them in a subsequent criminal trial, after all, it is only conjecture in much the same way as our hypotheses are on this forum.

NB I'm not trying to give you a hard time, Peter. 

[Guest]

@ Tony

The bad news is that I've heard on the grapevine that a lorryload of such inconvenient evidence was unfortunately shredded.

It is being said by some that that this was due to 'an oversight'.

Others say it is down to 'a lack of communication'
***
You're kidding, aren't you? Please ...

[AndyB]

Chateleine, I'm afraid we may be by far the most corrupt country in Europe
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Edited to add - It was actually two lorry loads not just the one

[Tony Bennett]

Tony, what is your thinking regarding the British Police going to PDL with the McCanns for the 3rd May anniversary. 

Image.

Perception.

Propaganda.

Smoke and mirrors.

Nothing else.

[diatribe]

Image.

Perception.

Propaganda.

Smoke and mirrors.

Nothing else.

Wot! not even any sticks of candy floss an' kiss me quick' hats, Tony.