Thoughts on the case from crime expert Pat Brown

Andrew wrote:M's hair is incredibly dark in comparison to the so-called last pic.

to be fair, Andrew, that could because LP is in sun and tennis balls is cloudy. But if you zoom in on hi res versions you'll see she has two different types of hair in both photos. that's where the face was prob blended with the other head.

Looking again at the photo by the pool,i can see the girls hats do throw feint shadow ,amelie from her sun hat ,and maddies slightly different place on her top half . Does make me wonder if the sun was higher and could be different time of day ? or another day ?Wher would the sun nee to be ,to just catch the hats ?and show shadow? joyce1938

Not clued up enough about sun angles etc, Joyce.

Just know the media has the sun shining out of the McArses all the time.

I'm now erring to the thought that the LP was taken on Maddie's birthday - 12 May - and is pretty much 'whole' with the exeptions that the date (obviously) has been changed and Maddie has been shopped in.

I am thinking this because of the weather, the clothes (Gerry's are the same as in the car park, Amelie has been taken out of her pink top and her shorts and swapped into the orange top for the 'swim') and the water droplets not being in front of the Maddie image.

I reckon that by the 12th the need was pressing on them to produce a 'Last Photo' showing Maddie alive on 3rd. Perhaps some expected witness hadn't come forward or questions were being asked by the PJ (suspicious about no dna?) -whatever.

So they took the photo on 12th, GM flew back to the UK on 20th (for practical reasons, to go through photographs and did he collect the pillowcase then?), took the photo to auntie Phil and uncle Rick and returned with Clarrie on 22nd with the necessary alterations made. TLP was released on 24 May.

All just theory not based on evidence, of course.

I think that if you're in the 'photoshop' camp, then that seems a very plausible theory, Dee.

Hellsbells wrote:because it's M's face but someone else's body and hair? Remember the hair bead story? Blow up the LP and look at the hair down the left side of her face. It's cut out like a big chunk. Meanwhile there's another tuft of unrelated hair appearing from beneath the hat. One girl, two lots of hair.

--

But it doesn't look like an arm - I think it is just digital manipulation.

Ditto the very faint pink line where Amelie's right arm should be. Again, I think this is digital manipulation.

Amelie's left arm doesn't look quite right either. By the manner of her sitting, she should have her left hand flat on the pool edge. But you do not see this. You simply see a wrist crease and then what looks like more arm. It looks odd and not realistic.

Unfortunately I am unable to copy and past the (heavily enlarged) relevant sections of the photo. But blow right up and look. Neither of the right arms look like arms!

If it is generally accepted that Kate's book is a work of fiction, and that the Tapas rogatories are also largely fictional, at least in places, then why is it so outlandish to suggest that the photographic "evidence" might also be largely fictional and heavily tampered with?

In actual fact, given all the distortions, deceptions and downright lies, imo, that have emanated from TM why would anyone expect the photographic evidence to be "the truth"?

I would say that each and every one photograph that has been made public is there for a very good reason indeed. If that reason was to "find Madeleine" then why did the parents themselves not search for her on the evening of her disappearance? Why would they release a photograph of a girl looking much younger than nearly four? Much younger than the girl in 'the last photo'?

No, the photographs have been carefully selected, cropped, edited and more besides with a certain purpose in mind. And that has nothing to do, imo, with 'finding Madeleine'.

Therefore I think discussion of the photos is important to understanding this case. When they were released, who is in them and who is not, what is in the background - all of this will provide clues as to what TM are trying to achieve. If there are indications that some of the photographs might have been photo-shopped or digitally manipulated then that provides clues too.

What were TM trying to achieve with those photos? There is always a reason for everything.

The girl who is supposed to be Amelie sitting by the pool in the LP looks so different to the Amelie seen (if indeed it is Amelie!) in other photographs taken during the days and weeks following 'the abduction' that she appears to be a different girl completely. The 'real' Amelie appears to be very blond indeed and looks every inch the chubby toddler of 2 years and a few months. The 'Amelie' by the pool-side does not answer this description and even her assured manner of sitting on the pool-edge is not that of a wobbly toddler of two and a quarter who is still quite unsteady.

IMO only of course.

joyce1938 wrote:Does make me wonder if the sun was higher and could be different time of day ? or another day ?Wher would the sun nee to be ,to just catch the hats ?and show shadow? joyce1938

they would need to be near the equator, joyce - it's never overhead or even close to it on the algarve.

Andrew wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

Ta da.

Good work, Chirpy.

Not so sure it's M's head on A's body though, Hellsbells. The body shapes are different. Chubbier legs/arms on A.

Also M in that Pic (IMO) is a hell of a lot taller than the 90 inches (i think it was) that she was said to be.

Do you think they have 'stretched' the pic in some way......

Amelie's body, someone else's legs and someone else's arms. And someone else's head. Easily done. I've long wondered why the "hunched" look just looks wrong - it's because the central trunk of the child with the tennis balls is chubby, but the legs are long and skinny, and the arms are artificially placed.

Plus look closely - Madeleine has no left knee (as she faces the camera). The right leg has a knee. The left leg has absolutely no knee at all. The leg is straight with no knee bump at all.

And given the angle that her left leg is at, you should be able to see a bit of thigh disappearing up into her shorts - but, there's nothing there.

Andrew wrote:Not clued up enough about sun angles etc, Joyce.

Just know the media has the sun shining out of the McArses all the time.

What is that little white strip above the tennis balls leading up to the child's face? It looks like a gap in her hair but should be showing a green background not white. Any ideas?

canada12 wrote:

Andrew wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:

Ta da.

Good work, Chirpy.

Not so sure it's M's head on A's body though, Hellsbells. The body shapes are different. Chubbier legs/arms on A.

Also M in that Pic (IMO) is a hell of a lot taller than the 90 inches (i think it was) that she was said to be.

Do you think they have 'stretched' the pic in some way......

Amelie's body, someone else's legs and someone else's arms. And someone else's head. Easily done. I've long wondered why the "hunched" look just looks wrong - it's because the central trunk of the child with the tennis balls is chubby, but the legs are long and skinny, and the arms are artificially placed.

Plus look closely - Madeleine has no left knee (as she faces the camera). The right leg has a knee. The left leg has absolutely no knee at all. The leg is straight with no knee bump at all.

And given the angle that her left leg is at, you should be able to see a bit of thigh disappearing up into her shorts - but, there's nothing there.

-------

The tennis ball photo is a good example of a badly photo-shopped photo, imo. And when you look at it juxtaposed against a genuine ( I think!) photo of Amelie then is looks even more fake. Madeleine's head is at an impossible angle on her body - far too far forward so it looks as though she has a hunched back. The whole image just looks fake. Amelie in that photo, on the other hand, looks quite natural. The body pose, the stance - all look natural and what you would expect.

And I agree that Madeleine's torso in the LP is wrong. Too wide and hefty-looking.

But what I find the most peculiar is why at least not have her wearing tennis shoes. The children almost definitely would not have been allowed to play in sandals as they could easily slip and fall. And why not have her holding tennis balls of the type used for mini tennis? Which are quite different to the adult type. Plus also have her standing on a tennis court of the type used for mini-tennis?

How (or perhaps WHY?) could TM get it soooo wrong? It just doesn't make sense.

And given how fake this photo looks plus what an isolated figure Madeleine cuts all alone without her friends just how can Kate in her book have the sheer gall to claim that: 'Gerry loves that photo?'

Sick, imo.

They (TM) have intentionally confused things from day dot. The photos are just added confusion so nobody really knows what M actually looks like. Chuck in a few faked ones and we are still all here many years later.

All part of the McPlan from the get go.

Dee Coy wrote:I'm now erring to the thought that the LP was taken on Maddie's birthday - 12 May - and is pretty much 'whole' with the exeptions that the date (obviously) has been changed and Maddie has been shopped in.

I would agree with you Dee Coy if it weren't for the fact that none of them have any shadows on the ground in the LP, making it look to me as if they have been photoshopped in wholesale. But yes the may 12th clothes could be significant. Also the weather. It's possible that A's orange top was put OVER the pink top she was wearing in the 5A car park that day, but nobody else seems to think that the pink strip around her neck in the LP is part of the pink top. Myself I think it's worth considering because nobody's neck is THAT pink!!!

.... should all this photo stuff not be discussed on the photo threads anyway....

Makes sense, keeping certain topics together.

Sorry, i suppose im a newbie again, so shouldnt really say anything.

And please dont tell Freedom that had 2 pints on a Thurs after work.

All good and interesting stuff though folks.

I hope I have worked this out correctly. On 3 May solar noon in PT was at 1329 and the sun was 68.9 deg so to replicate the LP I need to do the experiment when the sun will be at that elevation in Cyprus. According to tables that will be on 26 April at12.48. However TM claim it was actually 1429 they took the pic so will wait till 1 hour later.
To try to be as accurate as possible I will also replicate 29 April which will be 22 April for me and 12 May which will be 5 May. Need to find a round pool of correct size and a willing set of models. Not forgetting a trip to the sunglass shack at the beach for suitable shades.
Is there anything else I need to remember? Talking about distance from subject, angle etc.

yes chirpy they have to be facing approx south but if you look up all the stuff that "the author" did on this you will get the exact angle. If not available, S would do. and already you can see one of the big problems with the LP.

solar noon - sun its at its highest, meaning the ground shadows are shorter than any other time of the day.
solar noon at faro airport (near PDL) was 13.29 on may 3rd 2007 and the photo was originally said to be taken at 13.29. Ha ha ha. Pat Brown must have missed that little "conspiracy theory"!!!

http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/portugal/faro?month=5&year=2007

also they were facing south - the shadows would be cast downwards on their chests and directly behind them rather than to one side.
this is all an incredible coincidence!!!

also, who would ever ask their kids to pose for a photo while directly facing the sun? The idea is ridiculous. (I would say no wonder A is looking down but that would be to give the LP the credibility it doesnt deserve imo)

good luck with trying to replicate this chirpy but I'm afraid you won't succeed. The ground shadows in the LP are more like what you would get from overhead lighting at an internal location (or somewhere near the equator).

I also thought that the sun could be high ,because after gazing at the pool pictures ,for so many yearssuddenly realized few days ago ,and I was sat infront of a window .lots of light. I realized that feint shadows in front of kids sat there,also on Gerry .The girls shadow was ,from the sunhats amelies had wider brim.. so sun I think must have been high?joyce1938

Hellsbells wrote:yes chirpy they have to be facing approx south but if you look up all the stuff that "the author" did on this you will get the exact angle. If not available, S would do. and already you can see one of the big problems with the LP.

solar noon - sun its at its highest, meaning the ground shadows are shorter than any other time of the day.
solar noon at faro airport (near PDL) was 13.29 on may 3rd 2007 and the photo was originally said to be taken at 13.29. Ha ha ha. Pat Brown must have missed that little "conspiracy theory"!!!

http://www.timeanddate.com/sun/portugal/faro?month=5&year=2007

also they were facing south - the shadows would be cast downwards on their chests and directly behind them rather than to one side.
this is all an incredible coincidence!!!

also, who would ever ask their kids to pose for a photo while directly facing the sun? The idea is ridiculous. (I would say no wonder A is looking down but that would be to give the LP the credibility it doesnt deserve imo)

good luck with trying to replicate this chirpy but I'm afraid you won't succeed. The ground shadows in the LP are more like what you would get from overhead lighting at an internal location (or somewhere near the equator).

Sounds just a bit too coincidental to me..................13.29. The time must have been tampered with as well but whoever did it made the time, 14.29, in the mistaken belief that Portugal was one hour ahead. That particular time( 13.29 ) must have been very pertinent for some reason. Shadows or rather non shadows ???

is this another appearance of the LP outfit?



the date is ........ may 18th!!!   http://www.gettyimages.fi/detail/news-photo/kate-and-gerry-mccann-the-parents-of-four-year-old-news-photo/74186596

but earlier the same day the shorts were navy blue and longer.  Change of clothes during the day.



http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/kate-and-gerry-mccann-parents-of-four-year-old-madeleine-news-photo/74183233

big thanks to another MMM member (whose research is meticulous) who can't access the forum at the moment.

If you read Textusa blog Non-post 20th Nov (sorry can't copy over) she/he also states the 18 May.

Snipped

We believe that this photo is a composite of 2 photos. One taken of Maddie alone, WE DON’T KNOW WHEN, a copy of which appears in the Mockumentary. The other of Gerry with Amelie, which we believe was taken on 18 May. These 2 photos were then superimposed one over the other resulting in what is this photo.

here is the Textusa blog ref LP   http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/non-post.html#more

mccann files records nothing of note for that day

so may 12th or may 18th?

Hellsbells wrote:here is the Textusa blog ref LP      http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/non-post.html#more

mccann files records nothing of note for that day

so may 12th or may 18th?

Here's an off-the-wall suggestion about the LP and why Sean doesn't appear in it...

1. Perhaps the McCanns hadn't anticipated anyone taking their picture going into the OC on the day the above photo was taken
2. The photo was taken at the pool and it included Amelie and Sean.
3. They realized after the fact that there was something about Sean that would make him recognizable from the photo above of them entering the OC and they couldn't change it. Something to do with his clothing or his appearance, perhaps, that would give the game away.
4. They removed Sean from the picture - resulting in the lack of Amelie's fully formed right arm

So GM would have to change his blue shorts to the green and AM would have to change from the pink top to the orange? Am I getting this right? I usually get lost by this point but I want to follow correctly

well we know that Dad did change from blue to green shorts on may 18th because there are photos to prove it.
and as I said the other day A may have the pink top on underneath the orange one, which would explain why she has a bright pink neck in the LP.

Yes I agree Hellsbells, just checking I have it correct, a few seconds is all it takes for a top to be changed also, interesting...