Re: Thoughts on the case from crime expert Pat Brown

Mimi Tue 23 Feb 2016, 12:23 am

I can see what Pat is getting at - she`s probably right that if government/MI5 were brought in at the outset, it would have been a cleaner disappearance. But what if the Mcs, shocked by tragedy didn`t compose themselves for a couple of days and bumbled through the best they could ...... until GM had the idea of using blackmail to get his way, i.e. help us or else. So he gets help but they in turn blackmail him - they have dirt on each other, hence him bringing in the MSM on the Friday morning. I tend to place credence on Steve Marsden`s article `Gerry`s Tunnel Vision` where it is inferred that GM had info on Princess Diana`s death. I`ve always felt the Mcs are at loggerheads with the establishment, even though outwardly it seems as if the establishment of helping them.
http://truthformadeleine.com/2012/01/gerrys-tunnel-vision/

Hellsbells Tue 23 Feb 2016, 7:31 am

interesting observations, poster, but I would no more use the book as the definitive guide to the holiday than I would use a Ford Cortina manual to fix a Bentley.
re may 12th, so they spent the day in a private villa being plied with food and balloons? Really? Just a week after Maddie went missing, why weren't they out looking for her?
with the MW press announcement at 8am telling everyone to back off that day, it left hours and hours of
opportunity.
it's funny that people have spent 9 years trying to prove that the LP was photoshopped but if it can be shown it was taken on may 12th the photoshopping stuff is irrelevant.
btw the fuzzy airport videos show a little blonde girl . Why on earth do we assume it's MM? We don't even know what she really looked like!

chirpyinsect Tue 23 Feb 2016, 7:44 am

poster wrote:In my tinfoil hat world, she died before PDL. The holiday was then a set up to disguise her death, as there was something untoward about it. If you think about it, if nothing happened before PDL and it was an accident that week, there would be no need to release confusing photos where ( to me at least) it is not the same child in them all. If they knew she was dead and the body would never be found, why would there be a need to confuse the issue? By distributing confusing and conflicting images they have only invited speculation which you would want to avoid in their shoes.

-------

I know what you mean but there are at least some pointers that Madeleine McCann went on that holiday.

1. The airport bus video recording where Madeleine appears to be sitting on a seat with the twins and Kate on one side and Lily Payne and Gerry on the other. This would be consistent with how a family would travel together and would also be consistent with what a nearly four year old would want to do on holiday - sit by a friend (although Lily is younger but appears grown-up for her age). Given that they were travelling with the Paynes this would be logical. Also, given that this footage is in the public domain, it will be accessible to everyone - including the McCann twins and Lily Payne. Not to mention anyone else on that bus or on the flight who might remember the families. Even at just over two, the McCann twins might remember whether Madeleine had been on the airport bus and flight with them or not. Ditto Lily Payne. Why would TM have released this footage into the public domain for ever if it was not Madeleine McCann? Too risky, surely, given all the above?

Where is the proof that the airport bus sequence was really from that holiday.? Several posters worked very hard on that subject last year and at least provided some thoughts that it was taken at some other time. We only see M from behind on the steps and a very grainy almost still shot of her sitting on the bus. That could have been manipulated. Lily P was younger than M. As far as we are aware the other kids have never been asked if that was M with them and just how well would they know her anyway?
How many times would Lily and M have met? At 3 (say) wouldn't she just accept that a child introduced to her as M was that child, if they looked very similar. Same goes for Ella who would have seen her even less often as they had moved to Exeter.

2. Sean and Amelie allegedly shared a room in apartment 5A with Madeleine and Kate writes: "Madeleine was very taken with the novelty of sharing a room with Sean and Amelie." Once again, even at two you might expect the twins to remember whether Madeleine's bed was in their room or not. (The curiosity, of course, is that if something bad did happen to Madeleine early on that week, how on earth could the McCanns have concealed it from the twins if all three children were sharing a room? Must have been very difficult.)

Problem is no one asked the twins and by subtle brainwashing over the years they could have been fooled into believing anything the parents said.

3. It is on record, in Kate's book and in the Tapas rogatories, that the whole group had dinner together in the Millennium on Saturday evening. Given that Kate writes in her book: "Madeleine was so excited about going on a plane, and about going on holiday with her buddies," then surely that first evening at the Millennium Ella, who was almost exactly the same age as Madeleine, would remember whether or not Madeleine was there. Lily Payne too. I would imagine the girls would want to sit next to each other, especially Ella and Madeleine. There is usually quite a palaver seating a large group of families with yougn children together. Tables are pushed together. High chairs have to be pulled up and children quite often squabble about where they sit so you wouldn't necessarily forget this in a hurry. Plus it would be an evening people would remember as it was the first night of the holiday and the only night that the group ate 'en-famille' plus the only night they ate at the Millennium. So, again, an evening that the group would remember as it was a 'one off' that week. Ella O'Brien would surely remember this - a chance to sit next to Madeleine at the grown-ups dinner table that evening?

I don't buy anything in the bewk or the rogatory statements but see above regarding what the kids would remember.

4. It is on record, from both Kate's book and the Tapas rogatories that all the families had breakfast at Millennium on Sunday morning. Again, this would stick in everyone's minds as it was the first full day of the holiday. The first breakfast. And the only time that the McCann family had breakfast at the Millennium. So this would stand out both for the McCann children and also for the other adults and children (especially the older ones) It was a first (and last).

You seem to be saying that the Tapas lot were not in on the scam. Have I picked that up correctly?

4. It is on record, in both Kate's book and the Tapas rogatories, that the whole group had lunch together at the Payne's apartment on Sunday 29th April. Again, this would be a memorable occasion. The first full day of the holiday. The first lunch of the holiday. The only time that the McCanns joined their friends for lunch. Ella Payne would have remembered this as it was a first (and last).

5. One of the very few reliable (imo) eye-witness accounts of a sighting of Madeleine is a cleaner who recalls seeing the family leaving apartment 5A on Sunday lunchtime with the children.

Her account of what she saw would be quite consistent with the McCann's having lunch at the Payne's apartment, right down to them carrying plates with food on them (presumably the Payne's apartment would not have had enough plates for the whole group).

Nothing proves that it was Madeleine she saw. Not doubting the cleaner but if she saw a sub and the sub was very like the photos then an assumption could have been made. She was told M disappeared on Thursday. She saw the family group if 5 on Sunday ergo it must have been M.

She had the opportunity to observe the photos of Madeleine that were being circulated everywhere and has no hesitation in confirming that she saw the child before her disappearance in the company of her siblings and mother and father, although in the latter case she only observed him from a distance.

She states that this took place on Sunday 29th April, just before she finished her morning work shift (13.30) as she had the afternoon off that day. At about 13.15 she went to help her mother, who was cleaning apartment I of the same block (5) situated on the first floor. She clearly remembers seeing the girl accompanied by her siblings and mother leave their apartment (5 A) and walk to the stairs leading to the floor above. She was very close to them at a distance of about 1 metre, observing their movements for a few moments because she was charmed by them. Madeleine led the way with a plate (perhaps plastic) in her hand bearing a piece of bread. As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description. She noted, because she thought them nice, the type of shoes she was wearing, tennis shoes, light in colour she thinks, which had little lights along the soles, which lit up each time she stepped on the ground. Her siblings followed behind her, wearing the same king of shoes and each holding a piece of bread in their hands, their mother followed behind them without holding their hands. She seems to remember that the mother was also carrying a plate. Moments afterwards, perhaps the time it took to close the apartment door, the father came out and also headed to the apartment upstairs. When asked, she does not remember whether the father pulled the door closed or locked it with a key.

Kate also, in her book, writes that at the welcome meeting on Saturday afternoon: "We booked the children into the kids' clubs, starting the next day."

So, if it is true that something happened to Madeleine very early on that week - I suspect by Sunday night/Monday - then the Mc's are left with the problem of having booked Madeleine into the kids' club - which she attended on Sunday (the day when they had lunch at the Payne's apartment) but then having to find a way to pretend that she was there for the rest of the week, when she wasn't.

But if it was all pre-planned there would be a child there right from the start that everyone just accepted was M. No need to get the nannies involved.

Also, on page 101 of her book, Kate writes about the day that Sean first asks her where Madeleine was. This was apparently on Sunday 6th May.

Kate's reaction to this question appears genuine (for once!) and she writes: "Oh, God, oh, God....." I just don't think she would include this cameo in her book if Madeleine had never been on the holiday at all.

Theorizing, as always. I must get a life, lol!

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FATIMA_ESPADA.htm

Blue ink introduced (sorry!) to make your comments clearer.

poster Tue 23 Feb 2016, 11:51 am

Hellsbells wrote:interesting observations, poster, but I would no more use the book as the definitive guide to the holiday than I would use a Ford Cortina manual to fix a Bentley.
re may 12th, so they spent the day in a private villa being plied with food and balloons? Really? Just a week after Maddie went missing, why weren't they out looking for her?
with the MW press announcement at 8am telling everyone to back off that day, it left hours and hours of
opportunity.
it's funny that people have spent 9 years trying to prove that the LP was photoshopped but if it can be shown it was taken on may 12th the photoshopping stuff is irrelevant.
btw the fuzzy airport videos show a little blonde girl . Why on earth do we assume it's MM? We don't even know what she really looked like!

Agree - I certainly don't use the book as a definitive guide - but sometimes I do think it gives useful 'pointers'. Well, as I wrote in my post above, surely the twins would know whether or not their sister accompanied them on that airport bus and also on the plane? Agree that Lily Payne might not have known. But the twins - if it was another child, they would have known it wasn't their sister, surely?

But I agree a day at a private villa leaves hours in which to do other things - like the 'last photo' for instance. Perfectly feasible that it was taken that day. But I suspect it was just GM sitting at the poolside edge and that both Madeleine and Amelie (who looks so much older than 2 years 3 months) were photo-shopped in.

poster Tue 23 Feb 2016, 12:40 pm

chirpyinsect wrote:
poster wrote:In my tinfoil hat world, she died before PDL. The holiday was then a set up to disguise her death, as there was something untoward about it. If you think about it, if nothing happened before PDL and it was an accident that week, there would be no need to release confusing photos where ( to me at least) it is not the same child in them all. If they knew she was dead and the body would never be found, why would there be a need to confuse the issue? By distributing confusing and conflicting images they have only invited speculation which you would want to avoid in their shoes.

-------

I know what you mean but there are at least some pointers that Madeleine McCann went on that holiday.

1. The airport bus video recording where Madeleine appears to be sitting on a seat with the twins and Kate on one side and Lily Payne and Gerry on the other. This would be consistent with how a family would travel together and would also be consistent with what a nearly four year old would want to do on holiday - sit by a friend (although Lily is younger but appears grown-up for her age). Given that they were travelling with the Paynes this would be logical. Also, given that this footage is in the public domain, it will be accessible to everyone - including the McCann twins and Lily Payne. Not to mention anyone else on that bus or on the flight who might remember the families. Even at just over two, the McCann twins might remember whether Madeleine had been on the airport bus and flight with them or not. Ditto Lily Payne. Why would TM have released this footage into the public domain for ever if it was not Madeleine McCann? Too risky, surely, given all the above?

Where is the proof that the airport bus sequence was really from that holiday.? Several posters worked very hard on that subject last year and at least provided some thoughts that it was taken at some other time. We only see M from behind on the steps and a very grainy almost still shot of her sitting on the bus. That could have been manipulated. Lily P was younger than M. As far as we are aware the other kids have never been asked if that was M with them and just how well would they know her anyway?
How many times would Lily and M have met? At 3 (say) wouldn't she just accept that a child introduced to her as M was that child, if they looked very similar. Same goes for Ella who would have seen her even less often as they had moved to Exeter.

2. Sean and Amelie allegedly shared a room in apartment 5A with Madeleine and Kate writes: "Madeleine was very taken with the novelty of sharing a room with Sean and Amelie." Once again, even at two you might expect the twins to remember whether Madeleine's bed was in their room or not. (The curiosity, of course, is that if something bad did happen to Madeleine early on that week, how on earth could the McCanns have concealed it from the twins if all three children were sharing a room? Must have been very difficult.)

Problem is no one asked the twins and by subtle brainwashing over the years they could have been fooled into believing anything the parents said.

3. It is on record, in Kate's book and in the Tapas rogatories, that the whole group had dinner together in the Millennium on Saturday evening. Given that Kate writes in her book: "Madeleine was so excited about going on a plane, and about going on holiday with her buddies," then surely that first evening at the Millennium Ella, who was almost exactly the same age as Madeleine, would remember whether or not Madeleine was there. Lily Payne too. I would imagine the girls would want to sit next to each other, especially Ella and Madeleine. There is usually quite a palaver seating a large group of families with yougn children together. Tables are pushed together. High chairs have to be pulled up and children quite often squabble about where they sit so you wouldn't necessarily forget this in a hurry. Plus it would be an evening people would remember as it was the first night of the holiday and the only night that the group ate 'en-famille' plus the only night they ate at the Millennium. So, again, an evening that the group would remember as it was a 'one off' that week. Ella O'Brien would surely remember this - a chance to sit next to Madeleine at the grown-ups dinner table that evening?

I don't buy anything in the bewk or the rogatory statements but see above regarding what the kids would remember.

4. It is on record, from both Kate's book and the Tapas rogatories that all the families had breakfast at Millennium on Sunday morning. Again, this would stick in everyone's minds as it was the first full day of the holiday. The first breakfast. And the only time that the McCann family had breakfast at the Millennium. So this would stand out both for the McCann children and also for the other adults and children (especially the older ones) It was a first (and last).

You seem to be saying that the Tapas lot were not in on the scam. Have I picked that up correctly?

4. It is on record, in both Kate's book and the Tapas rogatories, that the whole group had lunch together at the Payne's apartment on Sunday 29th April. Again, this would be a memorable occasion. The first full day of the holiday. The first lunch of the holiday. The only time that the McCanns joined their friends for lunch. Ella Payne would have remembered this as it was a first (and last).

5. One of the very few reliable (imo) eye-witness accounts of a sighting of Madeleine is a cleaner who recalls seeing the family leaving apartment 5A on Sunday lunchtime with the children.

Her account of what she saw would be quite consistent with the McCann's having lunch at the Payne's apartment, right down to them carrying plates with food on them (presumably the Payne's apartment would not have had enough plates for the whole group).

Nothing proves that it was Madeleine she saw. Not doubting the cleaner but if she saw a sub and the sub was very like the photos then an assumption could have been made. She was told M disappeared on Thursday. She saw the family group if 5 on Sunday ergo it must have been M.

She had the opportunity to observe the photos of Madeleine that were being circulated everywhere and has no hesitation in confirming that she saw the child before her disappearance in the company of her siblings and mother and father, although in the latter case she only observed him from a distance.

She states that this took place on Sunday 29th April, just before she finished her morning work shift (13.30) as she had the afternoon off that day. At about 13.15 she went to help her mother, who was cleaning apartment I of the same block (5) situated on the first floor. She clearly remembers seeing the girl accompanied by her siblings and mother leave their apartment (5 A) and walk to the stairs leading to the floor above. She was very close to them at a distance of about 1 metre, observing their movements for a few moments because she was charmed by them. Madeleine led the way with a plate (perhaps plastic) in her hand bearing a piece of bread. As regards the clothes she was wearing she only remembers a skirt but cannot recall its description. She noted, because she thought them nice, the type of shoes she was wearing, tennis shoes, light in colour she thinks, which had little lights along the soles, which lit up each time she stepped on the ground. Her siblings followed behind her, wearing the same king of shoes and each holding a piece of bread in their hands, their mother followed behind them without holding their hands. She seems to remember that the mother was also carrying a plate. Moments afterwards, perhaps the time it took to close the apartment door, the father came out and also headed to the apartment upstairs. When asked, she does not remember whether the father pulled the door closed or locked it with a key.

Kate also, in her book, writes that at the welcome meeting on Saturday afternoon: "We booked the children into the kids' clubs, starting the next day."

So, if it is true that something happened to Madeleine very early on that week - I suspect by Sunday night/Monday - then the Mc's are left with the problem of having booked Madeleine into the kids' club - which she attended on Sunday (the day when they had lunch at the Payne's apartment) but then having to find a way to pretend that she was there for the rest of the week, when she wasn't.

But if it was all pre-planned there would be a child there right from the start that everyone just accepted was M. No need to get the nannies involved.

Also, on page 101 of her book, Kate writes about the day that Sean first asks her where Madeleine was. This was apparently on Sunday 6th May.

Kate's reaction to this question appears genuine (for once!) and she writes: "Oh, God, oh, God....." I just don't think she would include this cameo in her book if Madeleine had never been on the holiday at all.

Theorizing, as always. I must get a life, lol!

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FATIMA_ESPADA.htm

Blue ink introduced (sorry!) to make your comments clearer.

------

Yes - good point about the airport bus filming. I suppose that theoretically it could have been on another holiday. Although the grouping is consistent with what Kate has written in her book (I know, I know......!) I can accept that Lily Payne might not be sure whether the child next to her was Madeleine McCann but the twins would know whether it was their sister or not. I'm just not sure that TM would leave that footage in the public domain if it was not MM going on that particular holiday.

My take on it is that it is one of the few pieces of photographic evidence that Madeleine McCann went on that holiday at all! (But I accept that it might have been put in the public domain to 'prove' that MM was on that holiday. On the other hand, it might mean that 'something' happened to MM early on and therefore it was impossible to take photos of her later on).

What I find completely weird - and this might support the whole idea that MM was never there in the first place - is that GM had to go back to the UK to get items (of clothing?) with Madeleine's DNA on it. That is just beyond weird.

I'm not sure about the role of the Tapas. I think there was a media hoax (especially Sky) going on that week. But I think something went wrong. And the Tapas tried to cover it up. Hence the last minute panic and the bodged time-lines.

Also, we do have the Gasper statements. They would have got to know Madeleine McCann reasonably well as they were on that holiday in 2006 in Majorca?

My head hurts!

The year was 2005.

**candyfloss** Tue 23 Feb 2016, 12:44 pm

They would have to get something of Madeleine's from another source that was definitely hers, to match with any apartment dna, otherwise how would they know which was Madeleine's dna, it could have been anyones? It has to be verified as hers, as she was obviously not there to provide it.

ETA It was a pillowcase/pillow

poster Tue 23 Feb 2016, 12:53 pm

candyfloss wrote:They would have to get something of Madeleine's from another source that was definitely hers, to match with any apartment dna, otherwise how would they know which was Madeleine's dna, it could have been anyones? It has to be verified as hers, as she was obviously not there to provide it.

ETA It was a pillowcase/pillow

------

Ah yes - 2005.

I have to say that the Gasper statements are incredibly damning, imo!

So do you think Madeleine McCann never went on that holiday at all, then?

http://thegaspersstatement.blogspot.co.uk/

chirpyinsect Tue 23 Feb 2016, 12:54 pm

I actually thought I had saved my post as a draft as I intended to go back to highlight my comments to clarify. I must have sent it instead so apologies for that and thanks.
My thoughts on the airport sequences are that it was released precisely as means of proving M was in PT. If she really was there and you didn't know there was going to be an incident why else film such a bizarre video. It's not as if it was a cheery jolly sequence where everyone looked happy to be going on holiday. Why not a bit when they were leaving home, suitcases in the drive, excited kids, smiling parents? Why not a sequence when they arrived. Look at our apartment, the pool, the sunshine. No, we get an unverifiable 30 second glimpse of what? A girl we are told is M. And for nearly 9 years a lot of people have never questioned it. Exactly what they TM,believed would happen. If the files hadn't been released none of us would be here and the world would have accepted that it was M in the videos.

**candyfloss** Tue 23 Feb 2016, 12:57 pm

poster wrote:
candyfloss wrote:They would have to get something of Madeleine's from another source that was definitely hers, to match with any apartment dna, otherwise how would they know which was Madeleine's dna, it could have been anyones? It has to be verified as hers, as she was obviously not there to provide it.

ETA It was a pillowcase/pillow

------

Ah yes - 2005.

I have to say that the Gasper statements are incredibly damning, imo!

So do you think Madeleine McCann never went on that holiday at all, then?

http://thegaspersstatement.blogspot.co.uk/

No, I think she was there, what I meant was she was not there to provide a dna sample to match with. You can't just find dna in a place and say that belongs to so and so, it has to be verified with a known sample from that person.

poster Tue 23 Feb 2016, 2:56 pm

Yes - I see what you mean about the DNA.

The other thing that I think lends credence to Madeleine having been there at the beginning and then *something* happening early on that week - by Sunday evening or Monday I do believe - is that the McCann routine deviated from that of their friends by Monday morning.
Remember this is a group who are 'so into each other' - why would the McCanns have shut themselves away from the group every breakfast and lunchtime after Sunday? The Tapas bunch are all incredibly vague about quiz night and we are told there was a quiz night on Sunday. Was this a 'flash point?'

**candyfloss** Tue 23 Feb 2016, 3:11 pm

poster wrote:Yes - I see what you mean about the DNA.

The other thing that I think lends credence to Madeleine having been there at the beginning and then *something* happening early on that week - by Sunday evening or Monday I do believe - is that the McCann routine deviated from that of their friends by Monday morning.
Remember this is a group who are 'so into each other' - why would the McCanns have shut themselves away from the group every breakfast and lunchtime after Sunday? The Tapas bunch are all incredibly vague about quiz night and we are told there was a quiz night on Sunday. Was this a 'flash point?'

I am firmly in the camp of nothing happened early on in the week, and as for deviating from the routine, perhaps they just didn't like the routine, I think I mentioned it before somewhere here, you don't necessarily stick with people like glue just because you holiday with them. Perhaps they just wanted the company in the evenings for the meals.

If they had wanted to do things together, then they would have taken the children on days out, to various locations probably as a group, they didn't, and that tells me the just wanted mainly evenings together. Imo.

poster Tue 23 Feb 2016, 3:50 pm

I just find it odd that Madeleine would be kept away from 'her buddies' as Kate puts it for two meals a day. You would have thought she would be desperate to spend time with Ella and sometimes would have joined the group for lunch.

Do you think that whatever happened to her happened on Thursday, then?

------------

Discussion on the thread below about whether Madeleine McCann was at OC that week:

Look how much money Ruth McCann got out of The News of the World for letting the photographers come in!

Madeleine's 'abduction' really was a money-spinner for everyone.

http://truthformadeleine.com/2008/05/ruth-mccann-paid-e40000-for-photos-of-5a/

joyce1938 Tue 23 Feb 2016, 3:54 pm

There was atime when a cardboard item arrived with blood spot and it was the type of thing that was taken in hospital at the birth of all babies at that time ,used I think to determin if a certain problem was in new babies. The going to get pillowcase was for a sort of test to see if dna match ,and it did . .so that's why its had been spoken of as defiately maddies . I also said that ,it was female dna ,of a daughter of Gerry and NOT amelias. This was spoken about a lot on MCF a while ago. hope this helps ,it has stayed in my mind . joyce1938

dogs don't lie Tue 23 Feb 2016, 4:33 pm

Is it correct that if this had happened in the uk, the DNA match from the car would've been enough to be accepted, but it wasn't enough for Portugal?

**candyfloss** Tue 23 Feb 2016, 4:45 pm

dogs don't lie wrote:Is it correct that if this had happened in the uk, the DNA match from the car would've been enough to be accepted, but it wasn't enough for Portugal?

I remember reading that a long time ago DDL, and that's what was said, but I don't know if it is correct. Something about the markers, 19 needed in Portugal or something??? So long ago, perhaps someone can find it.

dogs don't lie Tue 23 Feb 2016, 4:59 pm

Thanks candyfloss.
I suppose if it was true OG would've had a fair idea what direction to head in from the start.

costello Tue 23 Feb 2016, 6:02 pm

dogs don't lie wrote:Is it correct that if this had happened in the uk, the DNA match from the car would've been enough to be accepted, but it wasn't enough for Portugal?

In a 'normal' case in the UK I would say yes ddl. I personally think there was too much political pressure put on the PJ. My only hope is something may come from the hair sample
that was collected by the Portuguese and maybe soon with new technology something may
come to light. I did read on twitter a few months back (from a reliable source) that this was one of Andy Redwoods prime objectives was to retrieve the sample, but Portugal stood firm
and would not release it.

e.t.a. whether this twitter information is factual or not, it does make you wonder.

Hellsbells Wed 24 Feb 2016, 8:39 am

poster wrote:But I agree a day at a private villa leaves hours in which to do other things - like the 'last photo' for instance. Perfectly feasible that it was taken that day. But I suspect it was just GM sitting at the poolside edge and that both Madeleine and Amelie were photo-shopped in.

having had another look at the LP, I think it's more likely that all 3 were whooshed in having sat in the same position on different occasions. The positions of the two girls look fine to me, but Dad's isn't right. The slabs surrounding a pool are partly intended for you to sit on, nobody lays the top half of their legs across the slabs with their rear end dangling off the back, it would be very uncomfortable. And his posture is too "head on" considering the curve of the pool. If I had to guess, I would say the LP background was photographed on a warm sunny day (ie not april 29th or may 3rd), and the figures were photographed in the same place at a different time and then superimposed. It's a good effort but the angles don't quite work, which is why (as many have said over the years), several shadows are wrong and he appears to be floating.
The other change that may have been made is swopping one girl's face for another, which is why the direction that M is looking in seems so strange. And presumably why she is wearing a toggle in her hair that she never actually had.

Guest Wed 24 Feb 2016, 9:16 am

All of which has made me think again about the strange black and white object behind Amelie, which has never been explained to my satisfaction. It's not the pool depth marker.

But could it be a digital marker on a photo of the pool to show where Amelie should be positioned in the composite.....? If Amelie had been photoshopped in perfectly, the layer containing her body would have covered that marker. However suppose the photoshopper moved her slightly to the left in the photo, and left the marker exposed...?

Hellsbells Wed 24 Feb 2016, 9:42 am

there are dozens of things wrong with the LP, canada12, and it surprises me that others can't see them (or some pretend not to). There are three of us in my office who have been following the case for years, and have had particular fun with the LP because it's so ridiculous. One of my colleagues, like other forum members, has done numerous caluculations about sun angles etc but you don't have to go that far. All you need to know is that everyone has a shadow on a sunny day, yes really, even around that mysterious ghostly pool......... except for "Maddie" and Amelie of course. But if you don't believe me just face the sun next time it comes out, and then look behind you. Maybe Pat Brown, who concluded that the LP is authentic, doesn't have a shadow either.

Thoughts on the case from crime expert Pat Brown - Page 7 GM05April2009

Thoughts on the case from crime expert Pat Brown - Page 7 GM05April2009

Thoughts on the case from crime expert Pat Brown - Page 7 ExplainTHIS

Bampots Wed 24 Feb 2016, 10:01 am

dogs don't lie wrote:
Is it correct that if this had happened in the uk, the DNA match from the car would've been enough to be accepted, but it wasn't enough for Portugal?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/the-police-will-get-the-results-of-new-british-504974

'The police will get the results of new British tests in days. Then they will make their move..'

Forensic tests carried out by British scientists on samples linked to Madeleine McCann's disappearance will be revealed in the next few days.

If the results confirm the suspicions Portuguese police have against Gerry and Kate McCann, they could be charged with killing their daughter.

Forensic Science Service experts are working on evidence recovered from multiple locations around Praia da Luz.

A senior investigation source said: "Detectives questioned Kate and Gerry at length, they had plenty of time to put everything to them. Now they're working through their replies but would ideally like to see the rest of the forensics before making their next move."

Claims over the weekend that the DNA test results were not as strong as initially thought have been dismissed by sources familiar with the investigation. Doubts were raised about the strength of the match taken from the McCanns' apartment because it had only 15 of Madeleine's unique 20 genetic markers.

But the Mirror can reveal that this exceeds the UK minimum standard of 10 markers before a profile can be linked to a crime scene.

Sir Alec Jeffreys, who invented genetic fingerprinting, has said that "15 or 16" markers would give "99.9 percent" certainty.

Traces of blood have been found in the boot lining of the McCanns' Renault hire car and its interior, where hairs and other bodily fluids were detected. Blood was also found on the floor of the McCanns' apartment. It has also been reported that when blood was found inside the children's bedroom two sniffer dogs - one trained to smell blood and the other to smell corpses - reacted at the same spot.

Channel 4 News last night said blood from the four-year-old was found on a window sill in the apartment as well as on the floor.

Analysis has already found the blood spots in the bedroom matched Madeleine's DNA profile.

Senior investigation sources told the Mirror that the forensic evidence was only part of the case police were building against the McCanns.

The source said: "One individual piece of forensic evidence is never conclusive - but when you put two or three or four together they become significant.

"Describing these samples as "degraded or partial" is missing the point.

"The Portuguese police have put them together and looked at them in the context of what other evidence they believe they have. That is why the police believe they are significant to the investigation."

Friends of the McCanns yesterday argued the traces could have been in the car because Madeleine's DNA would be on her sister and brother's clothes and toys.

But the insider said: "Transfer by accidental contact can happen with single DNA cells but when you are talking about a profile coming from blood or hair it is much less likely.

"An experienced scientist who has looked at many crime scenes will be able to interpret how it may or may not have got there. And while accidental contact transfer might explain one trace, when you have two or three from different locations the evidence becomes significant in the broader investigation."

After they were questioned over the weekend, the McCanns asked Portuguese police to let British detectives review the case but the request was turned down.

And Portuguese officers yesterday accused the McCanns of delaying the investigation by returning to Britain while under suspicion.

Spokesman Olegario de Sousa said: "It obviously complicates things and could delay the investigation as we will not have as much contact with them as before."

15 out of 20 of Maddy's unique genetic markers found in sample

10 markers are enough for profile to be linked to a crime scene in UK

15 or 16 markers results in 99.9% certainty, says top genetics expert

BRIAN READE - NO MORE INNUENDO: PAGE 9

**candyfloss** Wed 24 Feb 2016, 11:20 am

Thanks Bampots good find. Where on earth did all this come from...

snipped.
Traces of blood have been found in the boot lining of the McCanns' Renault hire car and its interior, where hairs and other bodily fluids were detected. Blood was also found on the floor of the McCanns' apartment. It has also been reported that when blood was found inside the children's bedroom two sniffer dogs - one trained to smell blood and the other to smell corpses - reacted at the same spot.

Channel 4 News last night said blood from the four-year-old was found on a window sill in the apartment as well as on the floor.

poster Wed 24 Feb 2016, 12:20 pm

There are three of us in my office who have been following the case for years, and have had particular fun with the LP because it's so ridiculous. One of my colleagues, like other forum members, has done numerous caluculations about sun angles etc but you don't have to go that far.

I agree. It's laughably fake. GM staring at the camera/photographer looking extremely anxious; Amelie looking like a child who is much older than 2 years and 3 months and Madeleine staring in another direction.

I think the positioning of all three is a bit 'off'. GM is 'floating'; Amelie's right arm is missing plus her left arm also looks wrong and Madeleine's arms are also wrong - both of them, imo!

ETA: Agree about the shadows too.

http://www.schoolsobservatory.org.uk/astro/esm/shadows

dogs don't lie Wed 24 Feb 2016, 12:53 pm

Knew I'd seen that before, thanks Bampots. Makes you wonder what's going on here. Shocked

Hellsbells Wed 24 Feb 2016, 1:55 pm

poster wrote:ETA: Agree about the shadows too.

I suspect we all see things in slightly different ways, poster, but when I look at the LP I see a scene in 2 dimensions that is supposed to be in 3D. It's too flat. So to me the LP isn't like a real photo, more like a piece of wallpaper. For many years I've tried to understand why this is the case and have come to this conclusion. When my eyes see something that is lit up by the sun, my brain expects to see a shadow cast behind it. It's what gives the picture its depth, ie its 3rd dimension.

Sponsored content