Friday, 10 April 2015


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 .


  1. This excludes an accidental death, right?

  2. No, I am convinced there was a fatal accident quite early in the holiday.

    But that does not exclude preparation. Wherever the photographs came from they were imo not printed on the night.
    Further evidence of that is the presence of the coloboma in the eye. If it's there, then it's photoshopped in. As it was in all the photographs published as from the following day.
    I will follow up with a post on that soon.
    As from May 2011 the coloboma became a 'fleck' you could hardly see. As it seems it always was. But after all, it was a good marketing ploy as GM told Vanity Fair.

    Also note that it's not under distinguishing marks in the description where a small spot on her leg is listed as such. You could hardly get a more obvious distinguishing mark than the girl with the thunderbolt eye.

  3. Interesting. No preparation as in pre- holiday, but post-accident in PdL....
    About the coloboma, how could they get away with that one?? The LOQK for Madeleine campaign that just turned into nothing, merely a fleck hardly worth mentioning....
    Look forward to Your next post:-)

  4. Another thing that must be factored in to the time the printing took place if it is to fit in with the arrival of GNR is that Russell claims to have searched with others down to shops and beyond to beach...

    I was asked who I spoke to' People in the bar at the shopping centre. Older groups of Portuguese people near the front, and a female possibly member of staff from Mark Warner.
    We tried to find a picture of Madeleine Kate checked her camera but these were mainly of her at home or not such a clear picture. We found a picture of Madeleine but we couldn’t print it off. Cat or one of the nannies said that they had a printer and took the camera away to get some photos copied. A copy of the photo was given directly to the Police, someone from the Mark Warner staff made a poster- but I do not know who that was. (page eight)

    And this from same source......
    When Kate raised the alarm she didn’t get to the table as the area was all enclosed, she was at the start of the path she shouted across to us. We ran out through the reception we were all in a panic some people went into the flat I stayed outside, I then conducted a quick search of the immediate area with Matt, Dave and possibly Gerry. We searched a cul-de-sac area which I would describe as being a passage way at the front of the block on the car park side. We went on to search the gardens and patios. Then we went downhill towards the centre. On the second search we went to the shopping centre and then towards the tennis courts. We searched around the back of the tennis courts.

    On my way back I bumped into Dave he said to me this is bad this is really bad they’ve not found her. We searched down to the beach I searched the East side, and Matt and Dave the West side. We went back to 5A it was clear that panic was setting in Gerry was on the phone to a family member back home, for someone that is such a strong character he is usually so calm, decisive, confident. He was lying on the floor in hysterics, he had a high voice crying like a baby, I didn’t know what to say.
    By this time we had been joined by Ocean Club staff I am aware that Fiona and Rachael had spoken to Jane.....

    A lot to pack in a short space I think?

  5. @16.18. Impossible I'd say. At the time he was with AT to print out the photos he was also in 5a writing out the timelines just prior to when the PJ arrived and must have checked with Matt and JT on details. ROB did a similar impossible tasl earlier that evening, involving changing a bed and washing sheets. Superman.

  6. What could possibly go wrong ??

    To use the Kodak printer to print from a USB stick, they needed two things:

    1. Tierney's Kodak camera docked with the printer, as the interface for control of the printing process. You tell the camera what want, and it commands the printer. Clearly, Tierney had such a camera otherwise the next bit of the story would be futile..(no other camera would do.)

    2. The chosen images already on a USB stick. To achieve this, the images had to be selected from the Canon and Olympus cameras, then a cable is needed to download some or all of the images from the cameras onto the hard drive of a computer, managed by software such as photoshop elements, for example.

    From the computer, the software can finally exported to a USB stick inserted into the computer.

    So, to print the images on the Kodak printer we have two inexperienced users who seem to be elsewhere most of the time, two cameras and two images. Plus a USB cable to transfer the images. Plus a computer with appropriate software, plus a USB stick of course. Then we need the printer withTierney's Kodak camera already docked. Then photo paper, then toner.

    Then we need the printing process to roll without hitches..

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. Elsewhere - this is getting to be like a dead letter box - a comment was made on the size of the photograph relevant to the aspect ratio. Below my calculations - approximate as I didn't have a calculator handy.

    I printed off the image on A4 and then on A3 in order to determine if the image would come up as 15 x 10 cm.
    A4 – 12 x 8
    A 3 – 18 x 12

    To guide me I had the two perforation holes. (too close together)

    Assuming that the distance between these is standard - ca. 8cm and measuring the distance on A4 as 6.1 (ish) and the photograph as 12 x 8 cm I calculated that difference between the area of the photograph and the image on A4 (150 cm sq area as against 96 cm sq area)

    So on A4 the photograph of 15 x 10 was reduced to 12 x 8, keeping the ratio perfect at 3 : 2 or 1.5 multiplier.
    I then calculated the area of the sheet needed to fit a 15 x 10 cm photo to be about 966 cm sq.
    (A4 is 620 sq cm and A3 is 1239 sq cm) clearly the size had to fall in between.
    By enlarging the A4 about 121 % the perforation holes fit the standard clip folders, but best of all, the photograph shows up as the standard 15 x 10 cm. The size of the paper would then be 32.5 x 23 cm. The area 968 cm sq. I would also point out that the paper looks to be different to the above , rather longer than 32.5 and perhaps a bit narrower. It also appears to be a form specifically for mounting photographs as is evident by the frame and the photo corners.

    This is the same photo as the one used on the Portuguese language A4. So the two different poses might refer to the cropped one and the non cropped one, both being the same size however as must have been cropped on a computer?.......Goodness, if cropped on a computer........

  9. Outros Apensos

    Page 541

    Report on Visualisation and Analysis of Photographs

    On this date, I can inform that photographs from a CD provided by Leicestershire police were visualised and analysed, these referred to photographs taken by the F***** family during their holidays at the OC between the 28th April and 5th May 2007.

    Upon analysing these photos, the result was that there was at least one photograph where some of the elements making up the group of friends of the McCann couple were visualised, nothing relevant being found for the investigation.

    Portimao, 23rd May 2007.


    Ricardo Paiva

  10. The analysis of photos by DC Stuart William Martin in Hampshire and the confusion which has arisen and persisted are hereby explained - my apologies. I will post this up with the references and quotes at a later date.

    For the moment a short timeline will suffice:

    8/5/07 Leicester police phone Mr. Foster in the morning and email (presumably Hampshire Constabulary) to ask them to send an officer to Mrs. Foster who will hand him the camera and video to analyse and download.

    8/5/07 DC Martin receives the camera and video at 9.00 pm.

    9/5/07 DC Martin delivers a CD to Hampshire police together with the above equipment. at 8.30 am.

    9/5/07 Gerry McCann and M. Wright give the PJ two DVDs which they have compiled themselves with assorted holiday photos.

    23/5/07 PJ officer Paiva notes the content of the analysed photos from the Foster family. As anonymous has posted above.

    But not untill the 22nd of May did the call for photographs go out - at a press conference by Gerry McCann and on the same day BBC News posted it online.

    Consequently the Foster family could not have reacted to the call for photographs.

    The existence of two cameras in the McCann apartment is therefore highly unlikely. However, this has little influence on the question of the printing of the first photo, in which the Olympus was ruled out in any case. Since there was only the Canon and even if one could explain a set of two photographs being given out well before midnight, the combined timings and statements from several witnesses forming a fairly clear chain of evidence.

    It also appears that none of the photographs sent to CEOP dedicated website were passed to the PJ. Something else to consider in the overall confusion.

    Many thanks to the anonymous poster for clearing this up- I can't post your last comment unfortunately for reasons you will understand and with which I mostly agree..