CEOP show Maddie is missing on 30th April 2007

bluebell wrote:

Andrew wrote:https://mobile.twitter.com/QUEENdePORTUGAL/status/611220638267604992/photo/1

WOWEE  !!!#
Thanks Andrew - could someone c/p this please ??        

Good idea bluebell, I couldn't read it that well, hence the reason I asked Andrew if the information is correct.

Thank you TTWO   -  very interesting indeed "need to know" but I'm hopeless at c/p.        

The other thing is the picture used by CEOP:



Where did they get hold of it? The first photo released by the McCanns after great convolutions with Kodak Printers etc was this one, I believe:



How come CEOP had a different photo as early as, perhaps, 30 April 2007? This is still peculiar even if the web page was produced soon after the disappearance, say 4/5 May. How come they already had that photo when nobody else did? Or am I missing something obvious?

I feel sick, this is scary if true.

dogs don't lie wrote:I feel sick, this is scary if true.

I feel the same ddl.

Potentially dynamite. I wait to see how the 'authorities' deal this.

Dare the media pick it up ?

froggy wrote:Potentially dynamite. I wait to see how the 'authorities' deal this.

Dare the media pick it up ?

Welcome froggy.

Sorry I don't know how to post it. .Many thanks to Isabelle Mc Fadden

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=646628475471403&set=gm.917473394981429&type=1&theater

froggy wrote:Potentially dynamite. I wait to see how the 'authorities' deal this.

Dare the media pick it up ?

Hi froggy, I can't see the media doing anything with this, but hopefully it will bring a smile to Dr. Amaral. I for one would like to say this thread has been fascinating all day, all the techno knowledge which is way beyond me, and to honest I got lost at times, but a lot of it does come together if you actually believe this scenario was pre-planned which I have always thought. Again just my thoughts.

costello wrote:I for one would like to say this thread has been fascinating all day, all the techno knowledge which is way beyond me, and to honest I got lost at times, but a lot of it does come together if you actually believe this scenario was pre-planned which I have always thought. Again just my thoughts.

I've never believed that it was pre-planned but the thing I find fascinating is that I'm now forced to confront the possibility that it may have been. That's certainly one of the many implications if 30/04/2007 is true (and I've no reason to doubt it)

Magnum wrote:Sorry I don't know how to post it. .Many thanks to Isabelle Mc Fadden

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=646628475471403&set=gm.917473394981429&type=1&theater

Yes many thanks to Isabelle McFadden (think Andrew posted this link up thread). Richard Hall's reaction to this on CMoMM was "Wow Slam Dunk" hopefully says it all really.

AndyB wrote:

costello wrote:I for one would like to say this thread has been fascinating all day, all the techno knowledge which is way beyond me, and to honest I got lost at times, but a lot of it does come together if you actually believe this scenario was pre-planned which I have always thought. Again just my thoughts.

I've never believed that it was pre-planned but the thing I find fascinating is that I'm now forced to confront the possibility that it may have been. That's certainly one of the many implications if 30/04/2007 is true (and I've no reason to doubt it)

AndyB's post.

That is literally almost word for word that I was going to post on it as well.

Richard D Hall says over yonder that, if true, this would blow the Smith sighting out of the water. Can't see how. I agree with him that it blows the McCanns' story out of the water. Obviously!

The Smith sighting could still have taken place for various reasons if a plan went wrong and a second version patched together. The Smiths could also have seen someone unconnected to the case entirely. Dangerous to leap to that sole conclusion by Hall, imo.

If this is true, has anyone any idea of what actually was supposed to happen?

https://mobile.twitter.com/HiDeHo3/status/611262389816791040/photos

Can someone post this pic up. On the phone this eve.

So IMcF had it confirmed but HDH had it as error?

"appear to be incorrect"

Has McGambleRuck been on to him...

Surely their writ wouldn't reach that far.

If it is an error, where does that leave the American courts, or is it just going to be an error in that particular record ?

Andrew wrote:"appear to be incorrect"

Has McGambleRuck been on to him...

Not a twit from Mr G since the story broke this morning. I bet he's been very busy.

Dee Coy wrote:Richard D Hall says over yonder that, if true, this would blow the Smith sighting out of the water. Can't see how. I agree with him that it blows the McCanns' story out of the water. Obviously!

The Smith sighting could still have taken place for various reasons if a plan went wrong and a second version patched together. The Smiths could also have seen someone unconnected to the case entirely. Dangerous to leap to that sole conclusion by Hall, imo.

My belief is yes the plan went wrong big time, and Gerry had to improvise (hastily and maybe foolishly). Still 100% believe the Smith sighting, no two ways about it.

costello wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:Richard D Hall says over yonder that, if true, this would blow the Smith sighting out of the water. Can't see how. I agree with him that it blows the McCanns' story out of the water. Obviously!

The Smith sighting could still have taken place for various reasons if a plan went wrong and a second version patched together. The Smiths could also have seen someone unconnected to the case entirely. Dangerous to leap to that sole conclusion by Hall, imo.

My belief is yes the plan went wrong big time, and Gerry had to improvise (hastily and maybe foolishly). Still 100% believe the Smith sighting, no two ways about it.

Me too.

froggy wrote:Surely their writ wouldn't reach that far.

If it is an error, where does that leave the American courts, or is it just going to be an error in that particular record ?

The McArms do seem to bizarrely reach a long way.

Very good question. 

ETA - welcome.

Yes Dee Coy - very unlike Gamble not to be tweeting every few minutes throughout the day/eve.

Know what, the more I think about it, the less sense it makes. If anything involving people in high places and possibly pre-planned, surely there's no way that Portugal would have been picked? Important people would surely know that Portugal would release files when archived? Wouldn't they?
IMO

froggy wrote:If it is an error, where does that leave the American courts, or is it just going to be an error in that particular record ?

A very very good question. If there is an error in WBM's dating of an archive, it becomes valueless.

So a discrepancy they are looking into........






Denise Thomson ‏@Syn0nymph · 6 mins6 minutes ago
@amsterdamkush @annienonymouss @jontait42 They have confirmed that the archive timestamp for that page is actually 31/7/2007 #mccann