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

[Newintown]

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.

I really can't see the point of that.  So you're saying that anyone who has any influence within the UK government can murder/accidently harm their child and hide the body/cry "abduction" when there was no abduction and they will have the British police fawning over them and even going to another country for the 7th anniversary of the child's demise with the parents and attending the local church for the anniversary, I really think that is taking things too far.

Surely that would be starting a precedent for anyone who wanted to get rid of a child and knew they had the backing of some high up government official to hide the facts of what happened.

[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.

I really can't see the point of that.  So you're saying that...

Best not to interpret my words, Newintown, as you've not interpreted them correctly.

I stick by the five above words I used, except perhaps to add 'window-dressing'.

I do not see what the practical purpose is of any of what Scotland Yard has done so far, nor for that matter what the new Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders and her senior lawyer colleague achieved by their expensive trip to the Algarve just over a year ago. (Nice time of year to go, though)

Scotland Yard, after 3 years and £8 million plus, have piles upon piles of 'actions' and 'lines of enquiry' to pursue - mobile 'phones by the tens of thousnds, sex offenders numbered in the hundreds to check off and eliminate, and...well, you know as well as I do about the rest of their seriously impressive 'to do' list. 

I think this may be their 27th visit to the Algarve.

They have yet to identify 'pot-bellied smelly bin-man' or whoever else was involved in any of these 18 incidents, about which we have precious little real information.

Nor anyone else. It's taken them 3 years to sort out 60 suspects and eliminate 22 of them. Good! Only 38 left then, which should take another 5-6 years at the current rate of striking. Unless, of course, in the meantime they find even more suspects or 'persons of interest'. 

What if they do find him? What then? - if he doesn't confess immediately to abducting Madeleine McCann?

What forensics are there?

None so far as we know.

Who saw him?

Who heard him?

Who knows what he did wth Madeleine?

And even if all that produced something, who would prosecute him?

The Portuguese, unless the smelly bin man was a British citizen or resident.

The Portuguese, so far as we know, have not even answered the British police's rogatory requests.

So what is the real point of this May trip to the Algarve?

From all the press reports I have seen, it looks to me as though the Portuguese are rightly treating this Operation Grange fraud with the royal contempt it deserves

[Newintown]

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.

I really can't see the point of that.  So you're saying that...

Best not to interpret my words, Newintown, as you've not interpreted them correctly.

I stick by the five above words I used, except perhaps to add 'window-dressing'.

I do not see what the practical purpose is of any of what Scotland Yard has done so far, nor for that matter what the new Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders and her senior lawyer colleague achieved by their expensive trip to the Algarve just over a year ago. (Nice time of year to go, though)

Scotland Yard, after 3 years and £8 million plus, have piles upon piles of 'actions' and 'lines of enquiry' to pursue - mobile 'phones by the tens of thousnds, sex offenders numbered in the hundreds to check off and eliminate, and...well, you know as well as I do about the rest of their seriously impressive 'to do' list. 

I think this may be their 27th visit to the Algarve.

They have yet to identify 'pot-bellied smelly bin-man' or whoever else was involved in any of these 18 incidents, about which we have precious little real information.

Nor anyone else. It's taken them 3 years to sort out 60 suspects and eliminate 22 of them. Good! Only 38 left then, which should take another 5-6 years at the current rate of striking. Unless, of course, in the meantime they find even more suspects or 'persons of interest'. 

What if they do find him? What then? - if he doesn't confess immediately to abducting Madeleine McCann?

What forensics are there?

None so far as we know.

Who saw him?

Who heard him?

Who knows what he did wth Madeleine?

And even if all that produced something, who would prosecute him?

The Portuguese, unless the smelly bin man was a British citizen or resident.

The Portuguese, so far as we know, have not even answered the British police's rogatory requests.

So what is the real point of this May trip to the Algarve?

From all the press reports I have seen, it looks to me as though the Portuguese are rightly treating this Operation Grange fraud with the royal contempt it deserves

If the police are seriously looking into a criminal investigation do you really think they would be telling the whole world let alone a forum as to who/when/what they actually know?  Do you not think they may be putting out a load of baloney to keep the "nosey parkers" away from what they are actually investigating and sending them on a wild goose chase.  They may be sitting in the SY offices laughing their heads off at the forum members running around like headless chickens trying to make some sort of sense out of what SY is up to.

As for press reports, they seem to make things up as they go along.  I don't think we can rely on anything the press print solely for makng money.

[Tony Bennett]

If the police are seriously looking into a criminal investigation do you really think they would be telling the whole world let alone a forum as to who/when/what they actually know? 

You mean they are activley lying about the four blond men, lying about Smithman, lying about 'smelly bin man' etc.? All deliberate lies, is it?

Do you not think they may be putting out a load of baloney to keep the "nosey parkers" away from what they are actually investigating and sending them on a wild goose chase?

Deliberate baloney? No. Just enough to keep us 'on message'.

Try reviewing in your mind every broadcast, interview, press release or statement by the Met, Hamish Campbell, Martin Hewitt or Andy Redwood over the past 3 years about Grange's work. Ask yourslef this question: what is the core message they have relentlessly been punping out? 

They may be sitting in the SY offices laughing their heads off...

I'm pretty sure that they've been doing this for the past 3 years anyway, along with those that set the review up: Rebekah Brooks and Rupert Murdoch. I would laugh at them in turn if I could, if the issues surrounding this case were not so serious 

As for press reports, they seem to make things up as they go along.  I don't think we can rely on anything the press print solely for makng money.

You may be missing a point. You and I may know that most of the press stories about Madeleine in recent years have been speculation at best and unadulterated rubbish at worst. But, like Operation Grange, the media are constantly 'on message': Madeleine was abducted, the wretched and incompetent buffoons of the Portuguese Police bungled the investigation, it needs Soctland Yard's finest to 'guide' them to the truth etc.  BBC's Crimewatch 'McCann Special', with its 6.7 million audience, was perhaps the prime and most effective recent example of MAINTAINING THE NARRATIVE.

Scotland Yard may be laughing now.

But 'he who laughs last, laughs best'

[Newintown]

If the police are seriously looking into a criminal investigation do you really think they would be telling the whole world let alone a forum as to who/when/what they actually know? 

You mean they are activley lying about the four blond men, lying about Smithman, lying about 'smelly bin man' etc.? All deliberate lies, is it?

Do you not think they may be putting out a load of baloney to keep the "nosey parkers" away from what they are actually investigating and sending them on a wild goose chase?

Deliberate baloney? No. Just enough to keep us 'on message'.

Try reviewing in your mind every broadcast, interview, press release or statement by the Met, Hamish Campbell, Martin Hewitt or Andy Redwood over the past 3 years about Grange's work. Ask yourslef this question: what is the core message they have relentlessly been punping out? 

They may be sitting in the SY offices laughing their heads off...

I'm pretty sure that they've been doing this for the past 3 years anyway, along with those that set the review up: Rebekah Brooks and Rupert Murdoch. I would laugh at them in turn if I could, if the issues surrounding this case were not so serious 

As for press reports, they seem to make things up as they go along.  I don't think we can rely on anything the press print solely for makng money.

You may be missing a point. You and I may know that most of the press stories about Madeleine in recent years have been speculation at best and unadulterated rubbish at worst. But, like Operation Grange, the media are constantly 'on message': Madeleine was abducted, the wretched and incompetent buffoons of the Portuguese Police bungled the investigation, it needs Soctland Yard's finest to 'guide' them to the truth etc.  BBC's Crimewatch 'McCann Special', with its 6.7 million audience, was perhaps the prime and most effective recent example of MAINTAINING THE NARRATIVE.

Scotland Yard may be laughing now.

But 'he who laughs last, laughs best'

We will have to agree to disagree.  Time will tell hopefully within the not too distant future as to who was responsible for Madeleine's "disappearance".  I still have faith that SY are working with the PJ behind the scenes, they cannot all be blind to what is staring them in the face.  After all a little girl of barely 4 years old has disappeared from a holiday apartment with numerous discrepancies within all the witness statements given, that cannot be forgotten and won't be forgotten.

[Tony Bennett]

We will have to agree to disagree.  I still have faith that SY are working with the PJ behind the scenes, they cannot all be blind to what is staring them in the face. 

"There is none so blind, as those who will not see".

[diatribe]

''they cannot all be blind to what is staring them in the face''




There are none so blind as those who will not see.

[Gillyspot]

From my transcript of Rachel Burden interview with Paul Luckman

Paul  - "Em we had a situation where er the Met stated that the police, the Portuguese police had not told them about a Cape Verdian who apparently was accused of three rapes of children and yet we had it directly from the police that in fact they had briefed the Met and the McCanns 6 months earlier in Lisbon even with a power point presentation on this case so these things don't do an awful lot to help relations and uh lets see what happens. "

So just WHAT "faith" should we have with the Met???

[Tony Bennett]

From my transcript of Rachel Burden interview with Paul Luckman

Paul  - "Em we had a situation where er the Met stated that the police, the Portuguese police had not told them about a Cape Verdian who apparently was accused of three rapes of children and yet we had it directly from the police that in fact they had briefed the Met and the McCanns 6 months earlier in Lisbon even with a power point presentation on this case so these things don't do an awful lot to help relations and uh lets see what happens. "

So just WHAT "faith" should we have with the Met???

A look at the track record of the man put in overall charge of Operation Grange, Hamish Campbell, should be enough for us to realise that this was always going to be a dishonest investigation.

Who put that piece of firearms residue in Barry Bulsara's coat pocket?

Who co-ordinated all the 'spin' lies about the culprit responsible for the point-blank range killing of Jill Dando being an 'obsessive loner'?

Whose fault was it that an innocent man spent 7 years in prison?

Thanks for the quote, Gillyspot.

Is your full transcript availabe for us to read anywhere, please?

[Woofer]

From "The Editor of Portuguese ....." thread :-


Gillyspot wrote:My attempt at a transcript

"
Rachel=British police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann say they are looking at 18 break ins into villas on the Algarve by a lone intruder.




6 have come to light since an appeal last month, with 5 involving an alleged sexual assaults against young British girls.




Paul Luckman is the publisher of the english newspaper the Portugal News and has followed this whole story and the whole investigation over the past few years very closely.




Morning Paul. So do you thing the Met Police are genuinely onto something new here?




PL – Em, I think I Have to question it. the Met. We have certainly heard nothing of these cases and anything involving foreigners comes pretty quickly to our ears. Its inevitable we are the largest English paper in Portugal you get to hear about these things. Em I noticed locally, certainly nationally, none of the national papers have picked up on this story and they have extremely good police contacts here. I don't think anybody here is taking this seriously and you really begin to wonder er I wonder after all the money that the Met have spent on this case if they're not looking to almost justify, I think we're looking what £7 million at the minute, on the investigation.




Rachel – Yeah , just be clear you're saying that you doubt the reports of these break ins, or..just the fact that they might be connected in some way to the Madeleine McCann disappearance.




PL – D'you know I am not in the position to, to say that definitely. But there have been no reports on this. Em at anytime I have found this extremely strange. I have searched through all our archives. Nothing has come to our ears or been reported.




Rachel – What about this assault on a 10 year old girl back in 2005 in Praia Da Luz. Now that's only recent that information & we don't know why it's only come to light recently. There are all sorts of … potential explanations. It could be that the child herself didn't report it at the time, They have to look closely at something like that don't they.




PL – Well the police will look closely and I think that the attitude, certainly the comments that I heard yesterday I believe eh will do little to create good relations between the English police and the Portuguese Police who are trying very hard to get this resolved. They have reopened the case




Rachel (interrupts) – are they cooperating with the Met?




PL – Yes, totally em this, this suggestion that they're not. I read headlines in the UK this morning arrests imminent … complete nonsense em the, the Met cannot make and I am sure they're not even claiming, they can't come into Portugal to make arrests mm you'll remember we had a situation like this 2, 3 months ago where there was mass coverage and they were arriving to make arrests and it just petered into nothing, there was nothing it was just a regular visit. Em we had a situation where er the Met stated that the police, the Portuguese police had not told them about a Cape Verdian who apparently was accused of three rapes of children and yet we had it directly from the police that in fact they had briefed the Met and the McCanns 6 months earlier in Lisbon even with a power point presentation on this case so these things don't do an awful lot to help relations and uh lets see what happens. Uh as I say I am very surprised there is no coverage at all not from any of the major dailies here in Portugal this morning and they are extroadinarly well connected much so than us ourselves of course. Just no mention at all.

Rachel – (interrupts) as you say we'll wait to see what happens. Thank you very much Paul, nice to talk to you. "

Note the bit in BOLD

[AndyB]

PL – Yes, totally em this, this suggestion that they're not. I read headlines in the UK this morning arrests imminent … complete nonsense em the, the Met cannot make and I am sure they're not even claiming, they can't come into Portugal to make arrests mm you'll remember we had a situation like this 2, 3 months ago where there was mass coverage and they were arriving to make arrests and it just petered into nothing, there was nothing it was just a regular visit. Em we had a situation where er the Met stated that the police, the Portuguese police had not told them about a Cape Verdian who apparently was accused of three rapes of children and yet we had it directly from the police that in fact they had briefed the Met and the McCanns 6 months earlier in Lisbon even with a power point presentation on this case so these things don't do an awful lot to help relations and uh lets see what happens. Uh as I say I am very surprised there is no coverage at all not from any of the major dailies here in Portugal this morning and they are extroadinarly well connected much so than us ourselves of course. Just no mention at all.

Rachel – (interrupts) as you say we'll wait to see what happens. Thank you very much Paul, nice to talk to you. "

Note the bit in BOLD

Depressing isn't it

[Woofer]

Hi AndyB - I didn't actually write the post - I just copied over what Gillyspot had transcribed from the interview. 

[Newintown]

We will have to agree to disagree.  I still have faith that SY are working with the PJ behind the scenes, they cannot all be blind to what is staring them in the face. 

"There is none so blind, as those who will not see".

I understand what you’re saying to me Tony, but you don’t have to shout.  I’m not deaf or blind.

I have my opinion, you have yours.  I cannot see – or hope I’m not being naïve – that SY would cover up the death/disappearance of a nearly 4 year old child and would lick the backsides or kiss the feet of the parents of that child to the point that they are fawning over them and even go on holiday to PDL with the parents for the 7th anniversary; parents who may have been responsible for the death/disappearance of their own child.

What a kick in the teeth that would be for the memory of Madeleine, a small child tossed aside like rubbish so that SY can bring a swift closure to the case by inventing a dead paedophile patsy and therefore proclaiming that the McCanns aren’t responsible at all even though they admitted to leaving the doors open in the apartment; throwing aside the evidence of Eddie and Keela and even the evidence that PeterMac and others have worked hard on and sent themselves to SY, all of which is being ignored in your opinion.  Would any PJ officer who had a small child want that to happen to their child?  I doubt it very much.  As one officer said to a poster who telephoned the SY office (sorry I can’t remember which poster that was) that they had a small child and could understand the feelings of the public with regard to the investigation.

What if a whistleblower came forward in a year or so after the case was closed to say that it was all a cover up, what would SY look like then and then there’s the McCanns and their Tapas friends, they would all be open to prosecution on a huge scale.

Imagine being a family member, friend or neighbour of Andy Redwood who all may be trawling the internet to look for details on the investigation and they come across this website stating that AR and SY are trying to cover up the disappearance of Madeleine and AR and SY are doing their utmost to exonerate the parents from any involvement in her disappearance and are desperate to find a patsy, any patsy will do apparently.   If I was his wife I would be horrified at having to go to the local supermarket showing my face to friends and neighbours or even his children (if he has children) must be under pressure at school by anyone of their friends whose parents have been discussing the case and searching the internet for details.

The McCanns have a lot to answer for in their quest to make £millions out of their dead or ”allegedly abducted “ child.  They and their Tapas friends have destroyed many, many lives over the past 7 years; I hope they (and their families and friends) can live with themselves knowing what trauma they’ve brought to so many innocent people.

[G1]

I was a lot confused by this midnight photos with Amy Tierney situation, but it may make sense in a simple way.

Russell O'Brien did not have a memory card, and was not looking for a USB stick memory card reader, as AT says she inserted his USB stick into her personal printer.

He had a memory stick. These USB drives connect directly with computers and printers, and do not need a separate "USB stick reader".

So, it is possible that Ro'B just meant he was looking for a computer or other hardware that would allow printing, such as a copier - printer, that had a USB data reading port.

Re. AT's printing a photo from her Pictbridge USB port in her Kodak printer. Others have said she could not choose the photo, and only the first photo would be printed. 

1. Maybe that's just what happened, maybe Ro'B made the photo the first, or even only one on his memory stick. He may have thought he was going to hand his USB drive to unknown people and leave it, so may have cut and paste his personal things onto his laptop, leaving the stick free but for a photo. Perhaps he had a new USB memory stick, or a few, and copied the photo onto one. Prepared against possible file confusions. This makes sense. Obviously, the photo still came from Kate's camera. What AT as a member of staff would be asking was - is this a known, recognised photo by the parents you want to print out, would they agree with having this photo of their daughter used? So the answer that it comes from the mother's camera itself is the sensible reply.

2. I don't know about the Kodak machine, but other Pictbridge printers without photo preview screens can work by allowing a printout of thumbnails of all the photos first. Subsequently, you key the number corresponding to the photo you want in the thumbnail printouts, and select how many copies of it you want and print that selected photo.

[G1]

... Which is not to say there weren't pre-printed photos before 3rd May, from UK, Portugal, even the Tapas Bar office, using Ms Tierney's printer but earlier. The nature of not knowing means one may guess or estimate,  but ought to remember that the possibilities go on and on, and perhaps the most likely is what was claimed. Perhaps not. I just wanted to point out, though, that it is possible, fully, that the midnight photos meeting between AT and Ro'B may easily make full sense as in the statements, though omitted for a long time. There isn't any real evidence to suggest photos of the little girl were prepared earlier. Fine to bring up the possibility, and strangeness of AT thinking it important a long time later to talk about it, but not to talk about the night of disappearance just after the time in police statement. That is strange, but that's all there is there - that strangeness and a possibility, again, among many when unknown.

Putting this with other things, though, and, like so much in the situation, it begins to niggle so much. For example, unexplained earlier in the night, some people insisted there was a fuss about an abducted child in the same hotel over half an hour before the supposed discovery at around 10 p.m.

I know we want to relate things that may be unrelated as they're already related to us in their strangeness and either being wrong or seeming to obscure something else.

[tigger]

@G1

The statements do not add up at all, whichever way you look at it.

The only way to make it all come out to: no prepared photos on the night' is by 're-interpreting' some of the statements and ignoring:
The fact that the said photos were not on the camera
They had no laptops with them
The coloboma was photoshopped in (see their own statement that it was practcally invisible)
The fact that the printer disappeared soon afterwards
The fact that Tierney said it was around midnight
The fact that ROB states it was well before the PJ arrived which was midnight
The fact the the GNR were thus handed photographs long before they were allegedly printed (GNR statements)

Add to that the number of photos allegedly printed - around thirty or forty according to Tierney
This alone would have exhausted a portable colour printer, would have taken a long time to print, up to an hour if not more.
Add to that that logically a recent photograph from the holiday should have been on the camera and used


The  photo of the night is not the only questionable image of Maddie, within days more were published which can be demonstrated to have been manipulated. This raises many questions, not least about the intelligence of both those who distributed these images as well as those of the public who do their best to make the facts fit the McCann version of events.

[G1]

Sorry. I forgot to add another possibility which I'd thought of. It's being a bit wild, but possible. This is the time around when the group may have thought they needed to delete the call records on mobiles. Some memory card reader - USB sticks will read many types of memory card, including phone SIM cards. Ro'B was asking for a vague piece of equipment, giving a reason about printing photos, when the OC main offices were printing or to be printing lots on quite a lot of printers. (Does someone know what time the main office printers were printing photos at / by?)

So, mobile calls were deleted from handset built-in memory, as far as I am aware (from reading). Whyever that was. It's not too much to wonder if there was any reason for someone to be looking for a memory card reader in a USB stick which may read SIM cards. For some further deleting. AT went ahead with the printing as Ro'B did have a USB stick with a photo to print on it. For this possibility, now the strangeness of Ro'B searching for something with the name "USB stick reader" might seem more relevant. 

I said it can all make easy sense. He was searching for a computer or printer. But, are there really likely to be laptops / desktops in 2007 without even one USB port? My 1998 desktop, not an expensive one, had 2 or 3 USB slots. A laptop I've had from around the same time or pre-98, not an upper market one, had a USB port. My low priced 1999 Canon printer and scanner were both connecting via USB, cables supplied back then. Would Ro'B be looking hard in case of finding old computers which had not a single USB port? It is possible. But seems stranger now, than it did.

So, still possible. And strange. A "USB stick reader". (When he allegedly carried a ready USB stick, not requiring an adaptor.) Someone asking for that is someone who, it happens, won't be thought to be looking particularly for a memory card adaptor (that may be found also to work in reading & editing SIM cards.) Yet, if someone has that lying around it may be offered.

I don't know. Again, it can make sense, and the statements say, though not from the time, Ro'B got his photos printed thanks to AT.

[G1]

Thanks for the clear summary, Tigger. That's much clearer than wading through the early pages in this thread.

[figaro19]

how the photos arrived on the usb key? pictures on the camera memory card in! 
(sorry for my bad english) 

[G1]

I have no source but I'm certain I remember that the OC offered the parents / group use of a computer the night of May 3rd. I understood that reception brought a laptop along,

Also, with things being literal, members of the tapas group may well have had a netbook, or, being doctors, a good PDA with photo file storage and transfer facility, if not a tablet. (PDAs were often v similar in capability to tablets 6 or 7 years ago.) But not listed it as "laptop PC". When you think about it, how likely is it that these busy consultants etc. would NOT have a single PDAwith them? They just keep a filofax at home and another in their office? It's not likely they would all be without one. This is a guess, but it makes sense.

I don't know, but here may be where photos were transferred, USB cable from camera to PDA or whatever, then memory stick from PDA.

This guess is as good as many. I suppose.

Or wouldn't it have been picked up on by those who suspected them - the PJ? Were the PJ querying that the group had digital photos when they should not have gotten them off the camera? Did I miss that?

Look, it's not hard anyway. I suppose the OC reception lent a laptop for a while. Also, any neighbour could have lent a laptop or netbook or tablet. The world and his wife of the vicinity went through 5A that night, it was reported. It's less suspicious in this part to think the group could have gotten photos from camera to USB stick.

Also, another fine possibility. The OC reception were printing Madeleine photos, some from computers. So isn't it possible or likely the group could have asked for, or been offerred a USB stick with photos from Kate's camera, using a reception computer? 

Simply the group just had to ask, knowing that (whatever happened) they would need an easy to use piece of equipment with photos on it, for the next day. They needed to get big poster photos printed, if the young girl was to be still not around. Though it may not be recorded, it's as likely this happened on the night of the 3rd, as after.

So, it wasn't recorded, probably other than "we got the photos printed" or similar. (I have a bad memory when it comes to all the details from the statements I've read or scanned through.) But, beyond R'oB's strange term "have you a USB stick reader" when he had a USB stick, and that AT omitted the situation for so long, in itself I think there's not much to be suspicious of. I mean of that, in the unique circumstances, these people managed to get photos from camera to portable digital storage, with the many possibilities. It's straightforward - many easy, clear, normal possibilities.

In fact, there would be something very, very, very strange if these people had not managed to do this, when a little girl had disappeared and the hours grew. (Again, whatever happened to Madeleine McCann.) People have been getting bogged down in some details.

[tigger]

To save quoting and indeed reading your long post G1,  you state in the first sentence that you have no source.

You appear very keen to find a way to find an innocent explanation. However, it appears you can only do this without giving sources and a magic laptop  which does not appear in any of the statements and also by ignoring the signed statements from those concerned as well as the follow up reports from the PJ regarding the photo paper used and availability thereof and the location of this apparently well travelled printer which was - imo rather curiously - lost in Switserland after having travelled with Ms. Tierney to PdL.

Based on the evidence it is most likely that those particular photographs were printed elsewhere and a good deal earlier than the night of 3/5.  

So I'm afraid I have better things to do.

[G1]

What I've been doing, Tigger, all I've been doing, is exactly what you've been doing, but from a uni-rational, open minded, logical, deductive position.

You make your suggestions. You, of course, have no source for your claim that the photos were most likely to have been ready and waiting, printed in advance. Or even that the group certainly didn't quickly borrow a laptop,  certainly didn't have a single PDA, or that the OC reception certainly didn't simply hand them a USB stick with their selected photos. I have no source for deductions I make, other than good sense potential explanations.

When some things aren't known and can't be known from the facts, when what may seem like really trivial details to people giving statements have, naturally not been included in every point possible. Tigger this is really not good evidence for a strong conclusion that your suspicions are right. These statements were not and would not be made to order for you, to confirm or dismiss just what you feel like supposing. You ought to realise that, that in the real world everything that is not set out in short sentences like for a child's book does not mean that it is rational to conclude a conspiracy.

Yes, the photos may have been printed in advance. But not only is there no source or any serious evidence for that, it is the more ridiculous possibility from the existing evidence. It's just one possibility, and from what's available in evidence specifically, the lesser likely possibility.

You're not helping your own theory by supersizing and entrenching your own lack of ability to examine in a rational, detached fashion.

I wrote:

"In fact, there would be something very, very, very strange if these people had not managed to [get photos somehow from camera / older memory card to storage device when much printing needed to happen soon, through borrowed laptop, PDA or OC reception helping], when a little girl had disappeared and the hours grew. (Again, whatever happened to Madeleine McCann.) "


This is really basic, blatant, MOST simple common sense in analysis, whatever happened to AT's printer some time later. But tigger replied:


"So I'm afraid I have better things to do."


Than listen to any really, really obvious discrediting of the reasoning behind your details of your theory?


Oh. I understand it may not be pleasant for you when, not only are statements written for your ready to take-off mind (with conspiracies), but someone bothers to point out how rational explanations are by far, by far the more likely explanation. Do you have psychic knowledge others don't have, is that how you know? For your arguing is leading nowhere.


Again, it is a possibility that the photos were printed in advance. But, while I'd have liked some intelligent discussion, it seems now that you, Tigger, are far from the best person to convincingly expound this theory you like. You're digging its grave, instead, for open minded people who like to value rational argument and deduction. Sure you can go on ranting, but those who favour the rational above all will know what the rants amount to.


The thing is, when this theory of conspiracy involving AT with Ro'B DOES remain a possibility, it probably deserves some better treatment when a plausible explanation instead can be presented reasonably as far more likely.


Again, my own feeling is that if the AT, R'oB photos situation really did happen, it would be more likely to suggest incrimination of the group, rather than cover something up. From the angle of this would be the time when some people in the group, maybe beyond the McCanns, maybe the McCanns, were concerned with mobile call records. While you can delete from phone handset memory easily, some phones / networks can keep some call data on SIMs, which need a SIM editor or computer plus SIM reader to edit. The strangeness of the term "USB stick reader" rather than PC or Pictbridge printer also is more significant with this possibility.

[Inspector Clouseau]

There seems to be a lot of confusion around how the prints could have been printed. Whilst the Kodak Easyshare G600 has a dock which can only be used by Kodak cameras, the printer does support the PictBridge standard. This means any camera which also supports Pictbridge can print to the printer and you can even use the cameras screen to select which photos you wish to print.

The Olympus C50-Zoom doesn't support PictBridge (it's an old camera from 2002), but the Canon A620 does (it's a newer camera introduced in 2005). 

The PictBridge connection uses a USB port on the printer end, so you would have to have a USB (printer) to MicroUSB (Canon camera end) cable, but I think these came with the cameras, as this is what you would use to connect the camera to your PC.

So it would be easy to print from the Canon directly to the printer, and you could even select which picture you wanted to print.

If you had access to a PC, there are a number of options :
1) Connect either camera via USB cable, the camera effectively appears as a Hard drive, and you could copy the pictures to a USB memory stick (which you would then plug directly into the printer). Note this method doesn't require any software to be installed on the PC

2) If you didn't have a cable, then the PC might have a SD card slot (they were available on some PC's back then), and you could take the camera memory card directly out of the camera and insert it directly into the PC. This only works for the Canon. The Olympus uses a different memory card format (xD card), and this type of slot wasn't available on PC's.

If they had access to a PC in an office, then I would be surprised if a USB memory stick wasn't available, they were cheap and always useful for moving files around in any general office environment.

If I had access to a PC, camera, cable and a USB Memory stick, I doubt it would take more than 15 minutes, to plug the camera in, download the photos, select the one I wanted, transfer to USB stick and clear up files afterwards. 

Additionally, if I transferred the photos directly from the camera to the USB stick, there wouldn't be any record of the photos left on the PC.

[PeterMac]

There seems to be a lot of confusion around how the prints could have been printed. Whilst the Kodak Easyshare G600 has a dock which can only be used by Kodak cameras, the printer does support the PictBridge standard. This means any camera which also supports Pictbridge can print to the printer and you can even use the cameras screen to select which photos you wish to print.

The Olympus C50-Zoom doesn't support PictBridge (it's an old camera from 2002), but the Canon A620 does (it's a newer camera introduced in 2005). 

Except that the poster photo was probably taken on the Olympus - or another camera with a pixel "aspect ratio ' of around 1888 x 2350

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />
The Canon has a ratio of 3072 x 2304    Far larger.

[TheTruthWillOut]

There seems to be a lot of confusion around how the prints could have been printed. Whilst the Kodak Easyshare G600 has a dock which can only be used by Kodak cameras, the printer does support the PictBridge standard. This means any camera which also supports Pictbridge can print to the printer and you can even use the cameras screen to select which photos you wish to print.

The Olympus C50-Zoom doesn't support PictBridge (it's an old camera from 2002), but the Canon A620 does (it's a newer camera introduced in 2005). 

Except that the poster photo was probably taken on the Olympus - or another camera with a pixel "aspect ratio ' of around 1888 x 2350

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />
The Canon has a ratio of 3072 x 2304    Far larger.

I just checked the settings in both cameras manuals and neither have an option to take pictures at 1888 x 2350.