Kate McCann releasing a book...

[purpledahlia]

Did anyone else see in one of the clips how someone thought that photo of her by the pool was actually a fake photo? what do people think? They'd said she looked superimposed in and she could be moved within the frame??

Also, found it odd that when they were supposedly printing off pictures of her for posters, they were using an old photo? not the most recent one of the holiday? why did they have no recent pictures of her? they were on holiday people always take holiday snaps?

 

[Jem_x3]

Did anyone else see in one of the clips how someone thought that photo of her by the pool was actually a fake photo? what do people think? They'd said she looked superimposed in and she could be moved within the frame??

Also, found it odd that when they were supposedly printing off pictures of her for posters, they were using an old photo? not the most recent one of the holiday? why did they have no recent pictures of her? they were on holiday people always take holiday snaps?

No I haven't seen that, but I did read this:

https://thelostmarketingploy.blogsp...-on-madeleine-on-her.html?zx=19a64ef33e0e8a9d

Really?

ETA: Just read this: https://truthformadeleine.com/the-last-photo/

Not convinced whether it's a fake or not to be honest. Don't understand why the time stamp was so important for the MCcans to keep mentioning it over and over but why would they fake a photo? Unless she wasn't actually alive at that specific time. Not sure what to think.

 

[honey08]

I wont be reading, i will be sticking with Peter Kays Bio

If i read it, i will get anxious and stressed and will be awake all night.

V xxx

same ere im guna give this one a miss my head wud be fried

 

[// arcadia]

Also, currently I'm reading how Kate apparently went out with Gerry and searched the next day.

"As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we'd never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes."

Thought she said she never physically searched for her?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YWCVSjIJk8

also the photo could have been superimposed, its easily moveabable and altogether taken out the photo.

https://truthformadeleine.com/images/last_photo_700px.jpg

https://truthformadeleine.com/images/madeleine_father_amelie.jpg

https://truthformadeleine.com/images/gerry_amelie_pool.jpg

https://truthformadeleine.com/images/maddyblackline.jpg


https://truthformadeleine.com/the-last-photo/

The timestamp its like they're trying to prove she was alive at that time i guess.

In their defence though, it looks like the pink hat on amelie could belong to madeleines outfit perhaps?

 

[Char&Bump-x]

I don't believe that ^

Amelie could also be moved around as she's not being overlapped at all either

There is a plausable answer to all the points raised about that photo

 

[Char&Bump-x]

1. The composition of the photograph is bad. Most people centre the subject and are pretty good at doing so with a modern digital camera because you see a preview in the viewing screen. Madeleine looks off-centred in this respect. It's a holiday snap, not a professional portrait. It's not centred, so what?

2. Madeleine is clearly distracted at something funny off to her left. Amelie is disinterested in the distraction and Gerry is firmly looking at Kate as she takes the photo. How many times have you tried to take a picture of your child and they've looked away last minute?

3. There are no overlapping features on Madeleine. Her body, arms, hair, and hat are all overlaid on the background. This makes it easy to “paste in” Madeleine with a software package like Photoshop. Same for her sister

4. Madeleine does not look to be wearing swim-wear. Kate is probably in the water and that would suggest the children were also in the mood to swim. Neither child nor Gerry look wet. Isn’t it odd to take a photo from within the water? None of them are wearing swimwear! I don't think Kate is in the water, maybe stood at the other side of the pool, nowhere has she said that picture was taken from IN the pool

5. Amelie’s twin brother Sean is absent from the photo. For a family image, why exclude Sean? If Sean was making Madeleine laugh then why not pan round and included him so all 4 family members are in the shot? Who says it is a 'family portrait'? And it could be anybody or anything making Maddy laugh.

6. The time/date stamp on a digital image is easily modified on a PC and a camera clock could be out by any number of minutes. Indeed, someone could alter the time before taking a photo. Why stress the one hour time difference or draw attention to it? Did they actually 'stress' the issue, or just point it out?

 

[// arcadia]

If you moved amelie though you'd have to fix gerry. Also i think madeleine is looking at the camera its just a side on look.

 

[purpledahlia]

I think the photo is a fake, but of all of them. Theres no shadow under Gerry, the black line behind Amelie and each of them could all be moved and the fact it was only released 3 weeks afterwards, and they had a printer to print posters, so why not release the 'last photo' for the posters? surely thats what anyone else would do?

 

[purpledahlia]

Yeah Kate was quoted on the link to say she was in the water with sean taking the photo.....

 

[CRWx]

hmmm another slip up with the physically searching and saying they didn't, surely you can't mix that up on accident you either did or didn't

 

[kimmyttcno3]

They declined to use it because they didn't want "strangers" looking after their children. The same "strangers" looked after the children for 5 hours a day in the crèche.

I'd rather have strangers lookin after my children than no-one!!!! Not that I'd ever have left my children in the first place xxx

 

[Midnight_Fairy]

Im still waiting for the abduction evidence...

 

[kimmyttcno3]

Im still waiting for the abduction evidence...

Think we might be waiting for a long time for that don't you!! xx

 

[Feltzy]

If anyone comments who doesn't believe the conspiracy theory we get told not to comment and that were talking rubbish, well I'll leave you ladies to it then.

Show me where anyone told you "not to comment" and that you were "talking rubbish?"

Thought not!

This is one of the most civilised threads I've come across on baby and bump. It might not be on a nice topic but people are listening to each other, discussing things, listening etc - there's been a few times I've wanted to say something which would have been classed as rude but I haven't, because the thread is going so well. I'm sure others can say the same....

Don't come on here & just because people are discussing things you maybe don't like,make out that we've said things we haven't even come close to! So rude.

Actually it was you that quoted something I said followed by ' - rubbish' but I see you've edited that now. And someone else said if you haven't read the whole thread and haven't looked at all the evidence then don't bother commenting. Well I'm sorry I was responding to the original post about what I thought about the book being released and seeing as I have 2 children I don't have time to read through 100 odd pages of conspiracy theories.

I see its got back on topic now though so I'm not arguing with anyone just wanted to explain my little rant last night lol. I think its just making me a little emotional reading all the theories because its making me think about all these different things that could have happened to that poor little girl, and my daughter is the same age as she was when she was taken.

A couple of points to add to the discussion, the documentary said that Jane Tanner released 2 drawings of the man she saw carrying the child and they were completely different, but I read that the second drawing was of a suspicious man that had been seen hanging around the resort in the week leading up to the incident. Also it said how can Gerry have not seen the man when Jane did, but Gerry was speaking to someone and its quite conceivable that his attention was focused on the man he was speaking to and not what was going on around him. Last thing I've been thinking about is that Mr Smith who said he saw a man carrying a child only then went on to say he thought it was Gerry after Gerry had been made a formal suspect, and only identified him because his 'stance' was the same as the guy he saw, hardly good drounds for identifying someone!

 

[Nut_Shake]

Are there any sites that state the facts of a possible abduction? I'd like to have a read

 

[chel27]

is it true they dined at restuarant even further away on previous nights? I did read it somewhere on here but i cant remember where it was and if there was a link to say this somewhere?

 

[TattiesMum]

Yeah Kate was quoted on the link to say she was in the water with sean taking the photo.....

Nothing to do with the photo per se (I've never got involved in debates about it to be honest as they seem pretty pointless - she was signed in and out of the Kids Club in the afternoon of the 3rd, so my belief is that whatever happened to her happened after she was collected that afternoon).

But why would you be juggling a camera and a two year old in a swimming pool? Maybe I'm just clumsy, but I need two hands and my full attention to keep a wriggling, wet toddler safe around water ... and two hands to operate a camera without getting a very shaky image

Irrelevant I know - but it's the first time I've heard the origins of this photo (ie who took it) and it just struck me as (like so much about the McCanns) not something I would do

 

[TattiesMum]

A couple of points to add to the discussion, the documentary said that Jane Tanner released 2 drawings of the man she saw carrying the child and they were completely different, but I read that the second drawing was of a suspicious man that had been seen hanging around the resort in the week leading up to the incident. Also it said how can Gerry have not seen the man when Jane did, but Gerry was speaking to someone and its quite conceivable that his attention was focused on the man he was speaking to and not what was going on around him. Last thing I've been thinking about is that Mr Smith who said he saw a man carrying a child only then went on to say he thought it was Gerry after Gerry had been made a formal suspect, and only identified him because his 'stance' was the same as the guy he saw, hardly good drounds for identifying someone!

Actually Jane Tanner has released/collaborated on many, evolving, drawings of the man she claims that she saw ... he's been white, 'swarthy', wearing different clothes ... his hair has changed length ... and on it goes.

Rather more pertinent than why Gerry (and Jeremy Wilkins) didn't see the man that Ms Tanner claims to have seen, is why neither of them saw Ms Tanner herself ... despite the fact that her drawing indicates that she walked up the same side of the road that they were chatting on and this isn't the widest of roads - as you can see from the photograph in this link: https://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html The link is also interesting in and of itself as it contains all of the statements made by Jane Tanner, so it is possible to see quite clearly just how much her story changed in the various tellings of it.

This is why people actually doubt that Ms Tanner was even in that spot at that time.

 

[// arcadia]

Edit - Me being thick

 

[TattiesMum]

Edit - Me being thick

It wasn't a 'thick' question at all Hon ... ascertaining exactly how long it takes after death for cadaverine to develop seems to be one of those 'how long is a piece of string' questions.

I've read all sorts from 30 minutes to 2 hours and it seems to depend on all sorts of variable factors ... heat, what the cause of death was etc.

Certainly I've received bodies into my care which have been 'on the nose' (as we call it) right from the moment of death and others where there is no discernable smell (to human noses) even after days