Conclusions

Since the last five posts may have been rather heavy reading, certainly for those  who prefer ‘McCann Light’ here follow the salient points made in the previous posts: 

Part 1: In the technical details we see that  the Canon camera is unlikely to have been used to print the photograph. 

The printer - if the camera is docked  on the printer  can print from  a USB stick. 

It is not likely that it can print 30 copies without running out of ink. The paper used is not available in the area. 

However, the aspect ratio of said photo is wrong for the Canon which is the camera from which allegedly the photograph was copied. So we still don’t know where the photo came from. We do know that it did not come from the Canon as stated in the rogatories. Neither do we know how it got onto the USB stick or even if there was one that evening. 

A ‘normal’ way to print a photograph from the Canon which is pictbridge enabled, is to use the usb lead that comes with the camera and print from the camera direct. This simple method is never even mentioned. 

Conclusion: if there was a USB key, it already had the photo on it. Both ROB and AT talk about one photo, one pose. Although ROB seems to be talking about the iconic red dress one and AT doesn’t mention the kind of photo at all. 

But as we will see, the plot thickens, as there were two photographs, different poses. 

Part 2:  GNR statements speak for themselves and give the time of their arrivals. 

Silvia Batista’s statement  gives a period of time  well before 24.00 in which the photographs are handed over. 

Part 3: ROB must have gone over the photographs questions four times in two days. 

Twice on the 8th and twice on the 10th since there are two lots of questions on the printing of the photo. 

Only one photo is mentioned and from ROB’s description it was the iconic one. He cannot remember what photo it was as he’s seen so many since. Since PdL was plastered with hundreds of these posters for weeks, it’s rather strange the image escapes him. 

The printing  episode is reduced to the vaguest recollection.  Most importantly, he does  not mention Tierney or a USB key. Not at all. Instead he thinks it was ‘Kat’ - the nanny he must have seen every day when he signed in his daughter. 

He does give a time: ‘well before the PJ came’  which doesn’t help much but puts the time before midnight.  (one nanny gives midnight as the arrival time of the PJ) See also timeline part 5. 

Part 4:  Amy Tierney. She is word perfect on the 17th of  April. ( there must be a withheld statement before this as she mentions previous statements regarding the printer). This is a week after ROB’s rogatory interview on the 10th.   She mentions a USB key,  ROB asked her to print photographs. She was at her desk in the Tapas (that Tapas is more crowded than I thought - only room for 20 guests, no room for big round table but somewhere a desk for the supervisor of the nannies - ah well, handy for a drink) . 

Only fly in the ointment is the timing: at her desk at 24.00. Goes to her room, gets the printer (necessary camera to dock and enable USB key to be used  is not mentioned). Returns to Tapas, sets up the printer and paper - we are now at least  some ten minutes further.

24.10 starts printing.  The Kodak prints each photo in 90 seconds. Photographs need to dry to some extent so say the first batch of  five will take at least 8 minutes before they are ready to take across to 5a - another minute or so to get there. 

So at the earliest there are five photos ready around 00.20. More likely 00.30. No longer ‘well before the PJ arrive’  and certainly  much later than the time given by Silvia Batista when she gave the photographs to (probably) Officer Roque of the GNR. 

Part 5: The timeline speaks for itself. A timeline of ROB’s movements that night would be good but the only point to make here is that according to his own testimony he was in 5a well before the PJ arrived. So he could not have been in the Tapas waiting for photographs to be printed. He was busy writing the timelines and these were impounded hot from the press so to speak. 

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

The PJ timeline in investigating the photographs. 

The main point here is that the PJ took no action (apparently) in tracing the printing of the photos before the 25th of June 2007, when the GNR returned four photographs of two different poses. Two of each. So - they may have felt the distribution of photographs within  the time given was a little strange when the absence of the child was noticed a mere 90 minutes or so earlier. But two photographs make it even stranger, certainly if there was no method of printing these at reception. 

The PJ interviews Silvia Batista on the 26th July, 27th July the photographs are sent off for scientific analysis. 

Note: the photograph on page 1 or Part One is a sheet from the GNR - not the PJ. 

The description which accompanies it is written by GNR Officer Roque.  Imo the original recipient of Maddie’s passport and the photographs. (see note 7 of Part 5)

Important note: the time of her disappearance is given to officer Roque as between 9.30 and 10.00 pm. (see note 6 of part 5)

On 25th June when the other four photographs are given to the PJ it is likely that the PJ then interviewed Officer Roque - this is not in the files. 

In any case, they would have  established the chain of evidence .

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