Part of a thread from the former 3As site, reproduced here without editing:
Amy Ellen Tierney (statement translated by Robert Murat)Creche Worker
Time/Date: 15H45 2007/05/06
5 June
England
• Questioned about Madeleine, Amy notes that Madeleine was timid but very intelligent for her age and would play with the older children;
• Also knows Madeleine’s parents—although it is the father who would normally pick her up from the club;
• Did not notice anything out of the ordinary with the parents;
• Affirmed that the McCanns never took advantage of the complementary children services which ran from 19H30 to 23H30;
• Affirms that on the night of the disappearance, she went to the room to check and see if the child was hidden and noticed that the window was open and the blinds lifted;
ET: Yup, he closed the shutters according to his statement of 10 May 2007 and then tried to see if they could be opened from outside. So, NOT in his 7 September statement but raises the question of whether Amy was at the apartment before Gerry supposedly closed the shutters, no?
• The first idea that came to her was whether Madeleine would leave on her own accord. She asked the parents the whereabouts of Madeleine’s shoes and they responded that they were in their proper place. These facts led her to later believe that Madeleine had been taken by someone;
• Even though there was a bed right under the window, and that the child could have climbed on the bed to get out through the window, the witness does not think it would be possible for her to lift the blinds. Nor does she believe it would not have been possible for a child of her age to climb out the window without falling as the window was very high off the ground;
• Responding to questioning, responds that the front door was locked but was not aware whether the patio door was locked; as when she got there, the McCanns and a friend (whose name she does not remember) were standing at the open doorway;• Witness also affirms that the child’s father went to the reception to call Police, shortly after hearing about the disappearance, and that 20 minutes had passed;
then she appears for more questioning.
Name: Amy Tierney
Has made previous statements in May last year.
Given that she does not speak Portuguese, Silvia Batista acted as interpreter.
When questioned and shown the photographs referred to in the previous statements, depicting the English girl, on “Kodak Xtra Life “ paper, 10 x 15, she said they were printed on her printer, also of Kodak brand.
When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware, which could read from memory sticks.
She went to her room and returned to the Tapas with the printer where she printed out 20 to 30 photographs of the girl, using her own paper, in 10x15 format mentioned previously. The memory stick containing the photos belonged to the McCann couple, and came from their camera.
She thinks that all of this took place at about 24.00 on 3rd May 2007. She presumes that she handed all of the photos to Russell, who distributed some to those present, the rest would be for the police authorities.
As regards her printer, she says that it is no longer in her possession as it is now with her boyfriend in France, she says, after consultation, and in accordance with her previous statements, that is was a “Kodak”, model Easy Share G60, of thermal ink transfer, with continuous tonality.
In annex, is documentation about the printer, describing its technical characteristics, which she recognises as being identical to her printer.
GNR Officer
Processos
Volume nº 15
Pages 63-64
Upon leaving the apartment he saw various photographs of the little girl printed on normal A4 paper which had been printed at the reception as well as other photos printed on 10 x 15 photographic poster paper which could not have printed at the reception. This seemed unusual to him and he later confirmed that they could not have been printed at the reception.
===================
Translated summarised snippet from Statement by Amy Tierney saying that she was approached at her desk at the Tapas restaurant at about 24.00 by Russell O' Brien who asked if she could help print out photos of Madeleine. She went to fetch another printer and printed out about 20 – 30 photos which she handed to Russell. The photos came from the McCanns camera.
=============
On the 25of the month of June of the year 2007, the Territorial Post Commander of the Lagos GNR, delivers to your Excellency Mr. Goncalo Amaral, Chief Inspector of the Portimao Policia Judiciaria, four photographs, two by two in different positions of the minor Madeleine Beth McCann, which were together with the copy of the missing notice NUIPC 201/07.OGALGS and which were given to us by family on the day of the disappearance.--------------------------------
==========================================
I've grabbed the statement where the PJ have confirmation of photo composition [inks type paper etc] This is truly astonishing what isn't revealed by the investigators..as follows..
On this date we travelled to the location referenced below with the intent of collecting elements relative to the poster style photographs (10 x 15) and which were alluded to in the previous information, namely, the place of its printing, for comparison with the paper.
The establishment FUJI, in Luztur, Praia da Luz, Lagos, proprietor MANUEL SILVA, alleges that he does not use paper identical to the printed posters mentioned above.
The establishment MLT SILVA, situated on Rua Portas de Portugal, no. 23, Lagos—
Proprietor MANUEL SILVA and the diligence had identical results.
The establishment JOAO JULIO, on Rua Antonio Barbosa Viana, no. 20, Lagos –functionary ENA COSTA, where also they do not use the same type of paper.
The establishment MONTE CLARO, situated on Rua dos Quintais, no. 9, Lagos, proprietor JOAO CARRONDO, and the diligence was identical to the others.
Have we got a photo of this LIAR!!!
Have a guess HOW MUCH SHE GOT FOR THIS LATE ADDITION?...funny thing the memory some seem to grow more recollection over time whereas the vast majority of us usual have a vague recount of past events..She manages to add a whole new dimension to 'suspended amnesia' but a knock at the door and an open check book soon got her neuron juices working...the cortex was working on LALALA overtime..
Last edited by Tripz on Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
+++++++++++++
having owned a kodak easyshare printer a few years ago I find it really hard to see how it could have printed out 20 to 30 a4 photos on photo paper without changing ink cartridges was this mentioned?.Also how long would have taken to print out said photos?Its not something one would run off in 10 minutes is it?
By their account, Kate discovered Madeleine missing, window open, shutters up, searched 5A for Madeleine and went back to Tapas restaurant where she raised the alarm. The rest of the group with the exception of Diane Webster but including Gerry ran/walked to 5A with Kate. Gerry says he closed the window and shutter because it was cold and the twins were in the room. Where does Amy enter the scene: did Kate inform Amy and others of Madeleine's disappearance and give them access to 5A before she went to Tapas to sound the alarm? That's the only way Amy could have been inside 5A and noticed the window and shutter open...as there is no mention by any of the Tapas 9 of Amy being part of the group that returned to 5A with Kate. (I hope I've put my point across clearly.)
Although why (I think?) they printed off pics that looked to be about two years old and not the 'last photo' which didn't appear for another three weeks is anybodies guess. No doubting that was a blo*dy strange decision.
The only fingerprints that were found on it belong to Kate Healy. The sense and the position of the fingers that were imprinted on the window indicate a movement of opening it to the leftâ€Â.
I dont think she just came out with all the technical spec off the top of her head. The statement says:
"she says, after consultation, and in accordance with her previous statements, that is was a “Kodak”, model Easy Share G60, of thermal ink transfer, with continuous tonality. " and "In annex, is documentation about the printer, describing its technical characteristics, which she recognises as being identical to her printer." Basically if you look at the relevant pages on the dvd you can see that the PJ printed off a tech sheet from the internet listing all the specifications of the printer - it is this she is referring to and agreeing is her printer. She signed the sheet IIRC.
Also, the Easyshare is relatively small and compact...It is designed for portability. Its not like she was carrying a regular domestic printer around with her in her suitcase.
JOHN ELLIOT HILL [Manager]
''This phone call was made to the deponent’s mobile phone at about 22.28 on 03-05-2007.The deponent thinks that the GNR arrived at the scene at about 22.45, however in a conversation several weeks later, he heard someone say, he doesn’t remember whom, that they had arrived at about 23.30, but as he was so busy he declared that he had no notion of the passage of time.''
''The deponent tried to print various photos that were distributed in different sites'' [err?]
amy tierney[office clerk/child carer]
''When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware, which could read from memory sticks.''[err?]
it quite clearly proves that someone else was copying photos that night..[no source] have you an answer to which one was attending to the photocopier..manager or Amy? You are certainly out of sorts with this case..methinks..oh well watch and learn SS..
What on earth does that prove? Amy was quite specific about printing 10 by 15 coloured photos on her kodak printer.
She didn't seem so specific in her initial interview in May 07? Can you find her specific detail to the photocopying situation..
There were aso some photocopied pages that were distributed, and maybe that is what the manager was referring to.
Where was this cited? You can't remember or you don't know do you? Weasel words yet again..this thread is hurting..let;s dig a little deeper then..Thanks for the heads up..
Your standard of sleuthing is slipping.
Ive never complained about your wig slipping now have I?
And I think I am perfectly in step with the case (at least as far as the official investigation is concerned).And what official investigation are you in step with? But out of step with the bulk of posters on this forum,Well you choose to come here what do expect? who persist in drawing ever wilder conclusions, producing theories based on certain people lying,Not theories but drawing on actual evidence that substantiates the person/s were indeed Lieing...Do you not find lieing a problem in your life? and ignoring the wholesale slaughter of the herd of scared cows.hindu now..yeah whatever..just go and find me the credible source i asked for..do something useful today...& peace
I'm still hoping for the innocent explanation as to why the Tapas were printing photos within hours of the child going missing and in the pitch dark, strange priorities.
Like I said, why the assumption that she wouldn't be found before light ?
What is unusual is the timing of the printing.
People are out at night searching for a missing 3 year old I doubt whether they really need a picture to check if a 3 year old wandering around PdL in the night is Madeleine.
The matter suggests that people were already planning for the next day,that they knew she wouldn't be found that night
As far as the witnesslying Idon't see any reason for her to lie as the statement does not helpthe McCanns case
The face of a girl roughly a year younger than Madeleine was when she disappeared. Although recent photos were available.
The poor GNR was running around with the picture that was attached to the Maddie file as seen on Amaral's book.
And of course, WHY close the shutters? Because the twins might get a chill! WTF - when Kate arrived in that room, she "immediately knew" that Madeleine had been abducted and I would assume have told Gerry of her suspicions. So why tamper with what would have been the most important source of evidence, why not just move the twins to a less draughty room? If I thought my child had been abducted and there was an open window/shutter scenario, I would have moved my remaining children immediately and made sure no one else disturbed the scene
The photo was supposed to have come straight from McCanns' digital camera - how strange is that?
The police in Portugal were at one stage deeply suspicious about the posters and how come they were produced so early after the child's disappearance. They didn't match the Tapas reception printer, IIRC.
You're right of course, but the essence is that the witness stated that the device was from the McCanns' digital camera and yet the photo printed was already a year out of date. Personally I cannot conceive of having year-old photos on my camera's memory card, I tend to shoot the card full just on a day out somewhere. Perhaps it was a USB but from Gerry's laptop rather than being from the camera and a translation terminology thing?
But what if the device actually was a USB stick with an old picture, rather than the card from a camera ? That would definitely suggest deception.
And what if the compliant Amy made the whole story up, to cover for the fact that there was no way the posters could have been printed on the Ocean Club printer?
And the posters had indeed been brought from England?
"ROB said they used one for the purpose of distributing posters, that night was taken weeks earlier when she had longer hair."
Statement.
Okay. What kind of photo was it”?
Reply “The, it was a, it was a photo of err, it was the one that was being circulated in the, in the days immediately afterwards, I’ve seen so many photographs of her, of Madeleine since, I think it was a photograph that had been taken of her and a relatively number of weeks before and I think with a slightly different, slightly longer hair, erm but it was, it was a fa, it was a fa, it was a relatively full on sort of face on photograph, err and it was printed on a standard size erm four by six err inch, as you know, using the equipment that the people had and we ran off a number of copies of this, erm and several I think were given to the, the GNR”.
And someone holding a 6X4 print on A4 paper is shown on the next page. Worth a read perhaps.
But, the Tapas males spent their time sorting out a photo....not actually searching PDL.
But then again....they already KNEW immediately that she had been 'abducted'....and told everyone that right from the very first moment!
OB isn't the self assured A&E operative he makes out..If OB was fumbling around with Amy & John in the office loading a memory card or memory stick from the Mcs camera..Why produce the totally bizarre image taken before the hols..Logic G states to give the masses/public a better understanding of the profile of the missing child they are searching for ..YOU PRODUCE THE LATEST IMAGE..which is?
Amy why neary 6mths delay before the before the limp second interview? Why was the John Hall interview delayed over month since the 3/5
2..Probably printed on the Thursday..I think the two statements by JH & AT are statements of half-truths and omission..What other reason for the late first statement made by JH..and the printer scenario omitted from the first statement of AT..As I said people in powerful positions are there cos of their power..
Quite, the idea that there would be lots of, or even more than one, little 3 year old hiding in the shrubs and in the dark recesses of PDL, is farcical and even if there were (all pretty, blonde and pink) surely they would want to recover them all!.
Imagining them running around with picture ( a year old !?) in one hand and torch in the other, is like a scene from Carry on Up the Algarve and every bit as slapstick.
Except, this isn't meant to be funny.
First thought that enters your noodle: Why did the PJ not just apprehend the printer that AT copied the Mcs photos from?? This as got to be the most IMPORTANT question of this case thusfar.
As for the 'sighting' of A4-sized images being available for distribution so early on that night/morning: if they are correct then either:
- both ROB and AmyT statements omitted that they copied the image to a memory stick, or scanned one of the smaller images, and ran off the larger prints in the OC office. I cannot accept that both would fail to admit such an obvious action; or
- there were pre-printed images of that dimension already to hand. If this is true then the involvement of AmyT may have been as a 'cover' - one that has failed because her printer (according to my reading of the specifications) did not use A4-sized paper.
The PJ seemed more interested in the provenance of the 10x15 pictures than in any A4-sized images when it would appear.that they should have questioned closely the provenance of ANY and ALL images of the child - and done so very soon into the inquiry.
.. running off to her apartment to dig out a specific copier machine, why doesn't he give this detail?..This leads me to see red flags in this small but vitally important sequence of events..I'm rather perplexed, and vindicated for having this opinion..could be supported by the unusual time lag from 25-6 to nearly 6mths later of AT submitting this rather limp statement of the whereabouts of the printer and all the specs which unsurprisingly correlate very nicely to the suspicious photo paper..why am I not surprised..The time it took is well beyond the normal this was an urgent request in May/June which is shown by the diligence.. regarding ascertaining the provenience of the paper [I reiterate why wasn;t this paper and it's supplier AT ascertained earlier] ..We can surmise a myriad of reasonable conclusions drawing parallels with the apr08 'rogues' statements,the allowed time span between gathering evidence is sadly diminished as time protracts,highlighting a lack of urgency by the PJ to uncover this suspicion they held before redirection/suspension became the 'modus operandi'...Maybe they had only days in reality to pursue the normal methodical processes they were trained to do..
If we go along with this story it leads us to question the reason OB choose photos that were clearly prior to the holiday, whilst knowing there were supposedly recent photos taken in PDL of her? Why not these images..and why when we have established these came from the same camera which took the 'last photo' the very suspicious time lag in eventually printing the alleged 'last photo'? Obvious to my untrained eye these suspicious and contentious anomalies just from the perspective of this particular situation
The PJ seemed more interested in the provenance of the 10x15 pictures than in any A4-sized images when it would appear.that they should have questioned closely the provenance of ANY and ALL images of the child - and done so very soon into the inquiry.
Why didn't they as you suggest thoroughly investigate this? It all smacks of a cover-up and forces above directing proceedings on the ground..how frustrating this must have felt for those PJ investigators who were genuinely go after the perpetrators..the job we all except they are payed and trained to do...It really is a corrupt world we inhabit do you agree
If we go along with this story it leads us to question the reason OB choose photos that were clearly prior to the holiday, whilst knowing there were supposedly recent photos taken in PDL of her? Why not these images..and why when we have established these came from the same camera which took the 'last photo' the very suspicious time lag in eventually printing the alleged 'last photo'? Obvious to my untrained eye these suspicious and contentious anomalies just from the perspective of this particular situation
Yes - me too, especially if that was the same card that supposedly held the 'last' photo.
If that is an accurate translation of what she said then it would seem that the images file(s) from the camera had already been downloaded to a USB 'stick', and it was not the camera flash card that was used.
Statement by
JERONIMO RODRIGUES SALCEDAS ~NO PHOTOGRAPH
George Robin Crossland~ NO PHOTOGRAPH
Shinead Maria Vine ~ NO PHOTOGRAPH
Susan Bernadette Owen ~NO PHOTOGRAPH
Maria De Fatima de Sousa Fernandes ~NO PHOTOGRAPH
Vitor Manuel dos Santos~NO PHOTOGRAPH
Silvia Maria Correia Ramos Batista ~NO PHOTOGRAPH
Kirsty Louise Maryan~NO PHOTOGRAPH [AMYT IS APPARANTLY SEARCHING ALONGSIDE HER 22;30ISH]
Lyndsay Jayne Johnson ~NO PHOTOGRAPH [WAS TOLD ABOUT THE INCIDIENT BY AMYT]22;20
Nelson Luis Da Silva Rodríguez~NO PHOTOGRAPH
Tiago Rochas Barreiros ~ NO PHOTOGRAPH
DANIEL JAMES STUK ~NO PHOTOGRAPH
Nuno Goncalo Marques Vincente Dos Ramos Bernardo ~NO PHOTOGRAPH
Sarah Elizabeth Williamson ~NO PHOTOGRAPH [TOLD BY AMYT]22;30
Leanne Danielle Wagstaff~NO PHOTOGRAPH [TLD BY AMYT]22;30
Joaquim José Moreira Baptista ~NO PHOTOGRAPH
RICARDO ALEXANDRE DA LUZ OLIVEIRA~NO PHOTOGRAPH
CATRIONA SISILE BAKER~ NO PHOTOGRAPH
It does seem odd that Amy didn't mention the photos in the first place, and since she mentioned a 'USB stick' it does suggest to me at least that someone downloaded the photos from the camera onto a laptop or PC earlier, and then onto a USB stick. But wouldn't the PC/laptop computer have to have the specific camera software loaded for this?
I guess the 6x4 prints printed on A4 were actually photocopies taken in later days.
Just to clarify. The Canon A620 cannot download images directly to a USB stick.
It has a cable which plugs into the camera the other end is a USB connector. You cannot plug this USB connecter into a memory stick as they are the same gender.
You have to download to a PC first then copy on to a USB stick.
Of course pictbridge enabled printers allow you to print directly from the camera via the cameras memory card or USB port.
Sans wrote:
Some cameras have either a USB port and images can be saved directly to a USB drive...
I don't think I have ever seen a camera that could transfer data directly to a USB memory stick. Can you name the make and model sans?
Sorry for keep going on about this particular device..What is not clear in my understanding is the use of a 'stick'..Aren't all digital cameras supplied with memory cards? Why then was AT & Russ specific when saying 'stick'...and why not the memory card from the camera...
We return to the USB stick..And how the imges were downloaded on to it prior to the incident? Still not reassured we have the right make/model of camera..please could someone point my in the right direction regards this FACT!
00.18.35
1578
“Did you have any photo of Madeleine in your possession”?
Reply
“Erm we got a photo of Madeleine later on but this is two hours later, erm”.
1578
“So who gave it to you”?
Reply
“Okay well certain, I’m not quite sure what the, the initial, the question made it sound like whoever had one in our possession anyway, I didn’t, erm we got a, we erm, after a portion of my searches, we got hold of erm Kate’s camera, err looked through the digital cam to try and find a picture of Madeleine reasonably recently, reasonably face on and, and with her being the main, the main character on the photograph, erm clearly that that was going through, there were quite a few pictures that were not ideal, so we, we went through those, err and then printed that off, erm all of this taking a reasonable amount of time to try and get hold of equipment and have offices opened and etc., etc”.
1578
“Okay. What kind of photo was it”?
Reply
“The, it was a, it was a photo of err, it was the one that was being circulated in the, in the days immediately afterwards, I’ve seen so many photographs of her, of Madeleine since, I think it was a photograph that had been taken of her and a relatively number of weeks before and I think with a slightly different, slightly longer hair, erm but it was, it was a fa, it was a fa, it was a relatively full on sort of face on photograph, err and it was printed on a standard size erm four by six err inch, as you know, using the equipment that the people had and we ran off a number of copies of this, erm and several I think were given to the, the GNR”.
00.20.21
1578
“I was going to ask you the next question”.
Reply
“Sorry”.
1578
“Was, who did you give the photo to”?
Reply
“Yeah well I think the ones that I had, I took, you know cos obviously they were printing out, you know they were slow you know, we really wanted to get them to the Police fairly quickly, so I took the first couple of copies and took those round to, I think the GNR staff, I presume they were the origin, you know original uniformed Officers, it wasn’t the PJ, it was well before the PJ arrived, erm there were other copies printed off which I don’t know where they got to but I know that Mark WARNER, somebody in Mark WARNER made a poster, or at least an A4 err saying that there’d been, you know, there’d been a, err an abduction and that Madeleine was missing and that was circulated around the next morning, so somebody had, had, had that photograph and used it for that poster but I took, I don’t know two or three copies maybe and gave them to the Police. I actually think ultimately there may have been more copies printed off and somebody else gave even more copies to them as well, err and I think some of the other copies were shown, were just shown to people around who were going on the searches but erm personally”.
1578
“The copies that you had, you only gave to the Police”?
Reply
“I gave it to the Police, just to the Police”.
"I think the most important thing is that the model of printer AT was using DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN LCD SCREEN so if printing from a USB stick you cannot preview or select a particular photo. The Kodak model AT was using is designed to dock your camera to it - namely a kodak easyshare camera."
Thank you veritas, that's what I was asking about earlier. If you can't preview pictures, that would suggest that there only was one picture on the device.
I wonder why that should be and where it originally came from ?
On this date, at 15.00 we went to the Ocean Club where we were received by the Maintenance and Service Manager, Silvia Baptista, and by the Mark Warner director, John Hill. We asked them to show us all the printers and photocopiers existing at the OC, which were operational at the time of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and that were used to print colour copies of Madeleine’s photo.
Silvia Baptista informed us that at the request of John Hill and his wife D****, hundreds of colour copies of a photo of Madeleine McCann were printed on 4th May 2007 with the aim of distributing them in Pda L and Lagos. For this purpose a colour photocopier, Toshiba, in the main OC reception was used as well as an HP laser printer, HP Color Laserjet 2840 located at a desk at the Ocean Country company, a colour laser printer Epsom Aculaser C1100 located on the desk of the administrative secretary and a colour laser printer HP Color Laserjet 1600 located on John Hill’s desk.
On his part, John Hill informed us that the printing of large quantities of Madeleine’s photo was carried out by himself with the help of his wife, at the request of Russell O’Brien, a member of the McCann’s group of friends, John Hill stated that the photograph the colour prints were made from a mobile data disk of the “memory stick” kind that Russell O’Brien gave him on the morning of 4th May.
They both stipulated that these were the only colour printers and photocopiers in existence at the Ocean Club and that there was no other place with the capacity for colour printing.
+++++++++++++++
00.18.35 1578 “Did you have any photo of Madeleine in your possession”?
Reply “Erm we got a photo of Madeleine later on but this is two hours later, erm”.
1578 “So who gave it to you”?
Reply “Okay well certain, I’m not quite sure what the, the initial, the question made it sound like whoever had one in our possession anyway, I didn’t, erm we got a, we erm, after a portion of my searches, we got hold of erm Kate’s camera, err looked through the digital cam to try and find a picture of Madeleine reasonably recently, reasonably face on and, and with her being the main, the main character on the photograph, erm clearly that that was going through, there were quite a few pictures that were not ideal, so we, we went through those, err and then printed that off, erm all of this taking a reasonable amount of time to try and get hold of equipment and have offices opened and etc., etc”.
Why does he come across so unconvincingly when asked a simple question?
Maybe it was the "who gave it to you" part of the question and he had to stop himself saying "Gerry gave it to me on a USB memory stick" From this snippet of ROB 'rogue' interview..he seems to have gone all dumb since the 3/5 when he asked AT for the data from his USB stick...I still think there is something in this sequence of events that could well be the gatekeeper to the bigger picture,..we're getting warm..as threads that are often closing in to a hot topic get the cold troll shoulder.....keep digging!!!
Umm, ‘And Kat or one of the other Nannies went to their flat to retrieve a printer or something that would connect to a printer and then the pictures were printed in the office off the small reception portal’, there’s a little office in there”.
Who were those present that were handed these postcard images? Why wasn't none of the OC employees present? What did JH mean by distributed to other sites...Was there evidence of this? Why NO mention of the AT account of things? Was JH really first notified at 22;28..why were witnesses that night saying they saw him much before 22;30? Why was the PJ so slow in ascertaining this printer and the relevant USB stick...the same stick OB fails to recollect in his 'rogues' interview [so we are lead to believe]? Who was AT. Receptionist, Child Minder, or Service Manager? Where is she today?
There's some questions for start
sans wrote:
The USB Anywhere connects two mass-storage devices....blah, blah, blah
You don't actually believe that do you?
So you think he looked through the images on KMs camera, selected an image, whipped out his "Belkin USB anywhere device" connected it to KMs camera, connected a USB memory stick to the other end, downloaded an old photo of Madeleine to the memory stick, then found someone with a photo printer that unfortunately only docks with Kodak easyshare cameras - but fortunately you have already downloaded the photo to a USB memory stick that this printer does read so you can plug your memory stick in and print off the required images of the missing girl.
Well done sans, it's always the simple solutions that sometimes get overlooked.
ROB wouldn't know what a "Belkin USB anywhere device" was if it came up and bit him on the a***!
Different direction to approach this period: Firstly ROB is not willing to co-operate in a direct manner that is obvious by the rogue interview and the omission from earlier statements...
What we don't know or has been described is the particular actions of ALL those sitting in the esplanade on 3/5...we have first reactions then nothing..so lets reconstruct the scenario from the alleged last visit 21;30 to the alarm by K at 22;00[official narrative]...we know the group headed back to the apartment...except DW..we then have interjections by OC employees who mention G&K and the odd mention[later rogue statements] DP & FP..
What I'm trying to deduce here is the whereabouts of MO & OB during the mallee? We seem to have lost them? I have taken the fact they have children which we must except if your friend is one childless your first reaction would be to check your own are still in their beds asleep..So if we allow for the women to head back to their respected apartments..we must concur the men would be out in the search parties that were organised by the OC & GNR and independent groups of citizens helping to find M...
OK! Now we have set the premise..we anaylsis what is official stated of the timeline between 22;30 -04;00.
Who saw MO or DP searching? Who initiated the idea of the photograph being printed? Did OB..who can't even remember the name of the nanny or item he was handing to AT.. at around 0;00h by her account...Who was present when OB was handing out these 6x4 postcards? We have yet see an independant witness statement that can corroborate this!
This was alleged the GNR officers were in receipt.. according to ATs statement..but if the early memory stick episode was not the same photo-printing situation JH is asserting in his statement what time did print photos of and by who's authourity?...We have the new shift[00.00h] worker @ the reception..who fails to recollect this printing session....Are we looking at this incident from an indicating to it being premediate? I'm starting to think along those lines...at this moment in time...
What OB is at pains to avoid is implicate any over person in offering the photo/s the manner in which was dwnloaded etc, which is strange.. in any normal abduction the innocent person/s would be bending over backwards to give clear constructive information/details if it would help get the little girl back ASAP...I'm shocked if those 'rogue' interviews are kosher? based on the obvious stuttering and incoherent answers given the person OB is certainly showing signs of cover-up..Shame the LP haven't the B alls to re-interview this guy.more
To stress again the role I believe JH was playing that night should be worth a shining a spotlight on. He obviously forgot to omitt the time he first heard about this incident if other co-workers witness him there @OC well before 22;30!...I think he's also implying a much later situation in regards to the photographs in order to suppress the AT&OB earlier encounter...
What is vital for us to progress on this line of inquiry is the so-called 'others present' that AT is quoting as seeing in the reception loca..Who were these people? Where are their statements? Did they notice OB and his memory stick?...What were the 'real images' that were printed and on what/who's say so? OB should have been pushed harder on this.by the PJ/LP.
The notion that a younger child image is more alike to the present weeks photos which were on the same memory card in the same camera.. is an absolute joke to suggest by OB..did the police officer fall off his/her chair on hearing this?
Has AT visitd recently the Mcs house or met in confidence a member of the Mc team? Why was she noted by fellow employees out searching with them?..Again the premise of this investigation must come back to who witnessed the meeting between OB&AT that night? Who were the others present who were given these initial photos? At what precise time did the last photo get printed? Who choose that particular image and at what PC was the image uploaded to the memory stick which AT asserts?
Ask Rus for a through explanation on how he come by the memory stick and it's contents..you will be pleasantly surprised to his answer?
It's the whole notion of distributing photos of Madeleine when it's past midnight and pitch black that's incredulous.
So you find a 3 year old wandering on her own and you have to cross reference with the image they were distributing! As if PdL was awash with babies wandering the streets on their own.
It was all part of the 'abduction' story - same as 'close the borders' and 'which way is Morocco?'
Alex Woolfall in the days after:
"They were trying to work out what to do that might help generate images of her. They were desperately keen to publicise her face.”
The McCanns had photographs of Madeleine on their digital camera, which Mr Woolfall began transferring to a laptop computer. “I said to Kate, ‘Let’s try to identify pictures where her face is visible’. Downloading the images was a very difficult process for them. It was upsetting.
(...)
Mr Woolfall transmitted the photographs to the Press Association in London, from where they were distributed to the media. The portfolio included the now famous image of Madeleine wearing a hat on a tennis court.
So why was this apparently done twice? once by ROB and later by AW?
he states that he does not know as he stayed with his daughter E**e O’Brien in the apartment.
I'm going to stretch my neck out and argue, RoB was not the person who confronts AT with the memory stick that night...It was another member of the group.
3 times seemingly, (according to ROB,John Hill, and AW.
ROB/AT on the 3rd May/early hours of 4th May.
John Hill later still on the 4th May.
And AW some days later.
Yes good point Nicked, someone (say ROB) could have already uploaded all the camera images to let's say a laptop in order to then download the selected image onto a USB stick for printing, then even if that laptop was in the friends' apartments and available to K&G, if it didn't have an email set up connection AW would have needed to upload them from camera again on the laptop they then used to email them to media.
It does seem unusual that amidst such chaos, someone would be uploading images between 10-12 pm instead of searching.
RoB makes no comment on who uploads the initial memory stick..read his 'rogue statement'..as this man omits the event in his PJ [2]07 statements...
Skeptical...Yes there were [3] PDL photo-printing sessions...What is under discussion on this thread is the 0;00h incident concerning AT & OB & the 20-30 prints
OB states he spent NO time searching camera images for downloading on to a memory stick... this only becomes apparent in that rogue interview some 11 months after the fact...Anyone care to explain why this was?
RoB makes no comment on who uploads the initial memory stick..read his 'rogue statement'..as this man omits the event in his PJ [2]07 statements...
Skeptical...Yes there were [3] PDL photo-printing sessions...What is under discussion on this thread is the 0;00h incident concerning AT & OB & the 20-30 prints
OB states he spent NO time searching camera images for downloading on to a memory stick... this only becomes apparent in that rogue interview some 11 months after the fact...Anyone care to explain why this was?
Interesting Tripz - maybe they used "Belkin Anywhere Paper"?
Most portable photo printers can read directly from camera memory cards. You pop the card in a slot and they have a small LCD screen for selecting images to print.
Is it yet another co-incidence that the portable printer available was a Kodak Easyshare, which is designed to dock with Kodak cameras, therefore does not have an LCD screen and does not read memory cards.
It seems as if RoB was psychic, as he made sure the selected image was transferred to a USB memory stick which just happens to be the only other way you can print from the easyshare without docking a kodak camera to it.
Personally I don't buy sans_souci's idea that RoB just happened to be equipped with the "Belkin USB anywhere device" and he doesn't mention using a laptop to download the image.
I think the only thing he was equipped with was the "Belkin Bulllshit Allthetime Device" which seemed to be readily available in PDL at the time.
We have a problem people ...It's established the memory stick/camera memory card are incompatible to the Kodak printer belonging to AT. We have NO evidence of people who were present at the OC reception receiving this 20-30 postcard photos of M? We only have a GNR officer observing these prints on a table in the Mcs apartment? AT you are pwned!!! Tripz.
"It's established the memory stick/camera memory card are incompatible to the Kodak printer belonging to AT."
That is incorrect.
The Kodak printer cannot read camera memory cards unless they are in a compatible Kodak camera, but does have a slot for a USB memory device.
Using the USB stick, you cannot select which picture to print . The printer would attempt to print every picture on the stick.
According to the PJ, there would appear to be 2 different images printed.
When she came close to the elements of the GNR she found that behind her was Gerry, Madeleine's father, accompanied by another man whose identity she doesn't remember. Then Gerry kneeled down, hit the floor with both hands, positioning himself as if he were a praying Arab, and screamed twice of anger, what he said being impossible to understand.
Then Gerry stood up and accompanied her (the witness) and the other man in the car of the GNR to the apartment 5A.
She entered the apartment and asked for the passports of all elements of the family, and also photographs of the missing girl. She went with Gerry to the GNR car to hand over the requested documents.
+++++++++
Amy Ellen Tierney ~Creche Worker
When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware[?], which could read from memory sticks.?
She went to her room and returned to the Tapas with the printer where she printed out 20 to 30 photographs of the girl, using her own paper, in 10x15 format mentioned previously. The memory stick containing the photos belonged to the McCann couple, and came from their camera.
She thinks that all of this took place at about 24.00 on 3rd May 2007. She presumes that she handed all of the photos to Russell, who distributed some to those present, the rest would be for the police authorities.
I believe the above statement was taken in April 08? How clear and polished from the earlier one by AT..We now know the memory stick belonged along with the camera to the MCs..Everything one suspects by this time would be easily corroborated..how a golden chance was squandered back in May/June 07.... [/color]
Why would RoB approach Amy Tierney at midnight with his USB memory stick when according to Ms Batista she had already given photographs of Madeleine to the GNR?
Russell O’Brienn doesn’t mention the photso to Amy Tierney in his firt tstaement:
RoB statement 11.05.07
[excerpt]
and the deponent with some other people decided to start looking around the apartment blocks, and in the apartments, to see if they could find Madeleine.
• In the searches they carried out, after the disappearance, they did not identify any element/person/or suspicious object.
• Because he is asked, states that he cannot describe the state of the children’s room after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, because he never entered there. When they were alerted to the situation, they immediately left the table, and the deponent immediately began searching the immediate areas, heading towards the village and the beach zone.?
• Questioned regarding if he noticed whether the blind to the children’s room was up or down, states that he cannot answer because he did not look. He remembers that when he went to check on his children, together with Matthew Oldfield, they were talking and did not look to the windows.
• Questioned whether he knows if Matthew Oldfield went, or not, to check on the McCann children, he states that he does not know as he stayed with his daughter E**e O’Brien in the apartment, but heard, after, a comment that he was supposed to have gone, but that in the checking, he went to the outside of the door to the room, saw the twins, and not Madeleine McCann’s bed, which was situated at an angle which did not give him visual contact.
• States that he has no suspicion to present, and doe not remember any detail of situation that could be related to the disappearance of little Madeleine McCann.
[source:DVD files]
Zilch.....Nothing....
Amy Ellen Tierney (statement translated by Robert Murat)Creche Worker
Time/Date: 15H45 2007/05/06
5 June
England
• Questioned about Madeleine, Amy notes that Madeleine was timid but very intelligent for her age and would play with the older children;
• Also knows Madeleine’s parents—although it is the father who would normally pick her up from the club;
• Did not notice anything out of the ordinary with the parents;
• Affirmed that the McCanns never took advantage of the complementary children services which ran from 19H30 to 23H30;
• Affirms that on the night of the disappearance, she went to the room to check and see if the child was hidden and noticed that the window was open and the blinds lifted;
ET: Yup, he closed the shutters according to his statement of 10 May 2007 and then tried to see if they could be opened from outside. So, NOT in his 7 September statement but raises the question of whether Amy was at the apartment before Gerry supposedly closed the shutters, no?
• The first idea that came to her was whether Madeleine would leave on her own accord. She asked the parents the whereabouts of Madeleine’s shoes and they responded that they were in their proper place. These facts led her to later believe that Madeleine had been taken by someone;
• Even though there was a bed right under the window, and that the child could have climbed on the bed to get out through the window, the witness does not think it would be possible for her to lift the blinds. Nor does she believe it would not have been possible for a child of her age to climb out the window without falling as the window was very high off the ground;
• Responding to questioning, responds that the front door was locked but was not aware whether the patio door was locked; as when she got there, the McCanns and a friend (whose name she does not remember) were standing at the open doorway;• Witness also affirms that the child’s father went to the reception to call Police, shortly after hearing about the disappearance, and that 20 minutes had passed;
then she appears for more questioning.
Name: Amy Tierney
Has made previous statements in May last year.
Given that she does not speak Portuguese, Silvia Batista acted as interpreter.
When questioned and shown the photographs referred to in the previous statements, depicting the English girl, on “Kodak Xtra Life “ paper, 10 x 15, she said they were printed on her printer, also of Kodak brand.
When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware, which could read from memory sticks.
She went to her room and returned to the Tapas with the printer where she printed out 20 to 30 photographs of the girl, using her own paper, in 10x15 format mentioned previously. The memory stick containing the photos belonged to the McCann couple, and came from their camera.
She thinks that all of this took place at about 24.00 on 3rd May 2007. She presumes that she handed all of the photos to Russell, who distributed some to those present, the rest would be for the police authorities.
As regards her printer, she says that it is no longer in her possession as it is now with her boyfriend in France, she says, after consultation, and in accordance with her previous statements, that is was a “Kodak”, model Easy Share G60, of thermal ink transfer, with continuous tonality.
In annex, is documentation about the printer, describing its technical characteristics, which she recognises as being identical to her printer.
GNR Officer
Processos
Volume nº 15
Pages 63-64
Upon leaving the apartment he saw various photographs of the little girl printed on normal A4 paper which had been printed at the reception as well as other photos printed on 10 x 15 photographic poster paper which could not have printed at the reception. This seemed unusual to him and he later confirmed that they could not have been printed at the reception.
===================
Translated summarised snippet from Statement by Amy Tierney saying that she was approached at her desk at the Tapas restaurant at about 24.00 by Russell O' Brien who asked if she could help print out photos of Madeleine. She went to fetch another printer and printed out about 20 – 30 photos which she handed to Russell. The photos came from the McCanns camera.
=============
On the 25of the month of June of the year 2007, the Territorial Post Commander of the Lagos GNR, delivers to your Excellency Mr. Goncalo Amaral, Chief Inspector of the Portimao Policia Judiciaria, four photographs, two by two in different positions of the minor Madeleine Beth McCann, which were together with the copy of the missing notice NUIPC 201/07.OGALGS and which were given to us by family on the day of the disappearance.--------------------------------
==========================================
I've grabbed the statement where the PJ have confirmation of photo composition [inks type paper etc] This is truly astonishing what isn't revealed by the investigators..as follows..
On this date we travelled to the location referenced below with the intent of collecting elements relative to the poster style photographs (10 x 15) and which were alluded to in the previous information, namely, the place of its printing, for comparison with the paper.
The establishment FUJI, in Luztur, Praia da Luz, Lagos, proprietor MANUEL SILVA, alleges that he does not use paper identical to the printed posters mentioned above.
The establishment MLT SILVA, situated on Rua Portas de Portugal, no. 23, Lagos—
Proprietor MANUEL SILVA and the diligence had identical results.
The establishment JOAO JULIO, on Rua Antonio Barbosa Viana, no. 20, Lagos –functionary ENA COSTA, where also they do not use the same type of paper.
The establishment MONTE CLARO, situated on Rua dos Quintais, no. 9, Lagos, proprietor JOAO CARRONDO, and the diligence was identical to the others.
Have we got a photo of this LIAR!!!
Have a guess HOW MUCH SHE GOT FOR THIS LATE ADDITION?...funny thing the memory some seem to grow more recollection over time whereas the vast majority of us usual have a vague recount of past events..She manages to add a whole new dimension to 'suspended amnesia' but a knock at the door and an open check book soon got her neuron juices working...the cortex was working on LALALA overtime..
Last edited by Tripz on Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
+++++++++++++
having owned a kodak easyshare printer a few years ago I find it really hard to see how it could have printed out 20 to 30 a4 photos on photo paper without changing ink cartridges was this mentioned?.Also how long would have taken to print out said photos?Its not something one would run off in 10 minutes is it?
By their account, Kate discovered Madeleine missing, window open, shutters up, searched 5A for Madeleine and went back to Tapas restaurant where she raised the alarm. The rest of the group with the exception of Diane Webster but including Gerry ran/walked to 5A with Kate. Gerry says he closed the window and shutter because it was cold and the twins were in the room. Where does Amy enter the scene: did Kate inform Amy and others of Madeleine's disappearance and give them access to 5A before she went to Tapas to sound the alarm? That's the only way Amy could have been inside 5A and noticed the window and shutter open...as there is no mention by any of the Tapas 9 of Amy being part of the group that returned to 5A with Kate. (I hope I've put my point across clearly.)
Although why (I think?) they printed off pics that looked to be about two years old and not the 'last photo' which didn't appear for another three weeks is anybodies guess. No doubting that was a blo*dy strange decision.
The only fingerprints that were found on it belong to Kate Healy. The sense and the position of the fingers that were imprinted on the window indicate a movement of opening it to the leftâ€Â.
I dont think she just came out with all the technical spec off the top of her head. The statement says:
"she says, after consultation, and in accordance with her previous statements, that is was a “Kodak”, model Easy Share G60, of thermal ink transfer, with continuous tonality. " and "In annex, is documentation about the printer, describing its technical characteristics, which she recognises as being identical to her printer." Basically if you look at the relevant pages on the dvd you can see that the PJ printed off a tech sheet from the internet listing all the specifications of the printer - it is this she is referring to and agreeing is her printer. She signed the sheet IIRC.
Also, the Easyshare is relatively small and compact...It is designed for portability. Its not like she was carrying a regular domestic printer around with her in her suitcase.
JOHN ELLIOT HILL [Manager]
''This phone call was made to the deponent’s mobile phone at about 22.28 on 03-05-2007.The deponent thinks that the GNR arrived at the scene at about 22.45, however in a conversation several weeks later, he heard someone say, he doesn’t remember whom, that they had arrived at about 23.30, but as he was so busy he declared that he had no notion of the passage of time.''
''The deponent tried to print various photos that were distributed in different sites'' [err?]
amy tierney[office clerk/child carer]
''When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware, which could read from memory sticks.''[err?]
it quite clearly proves that someone else was copying photos that night..[no source] have you an answer to which one was attending to the photocopier..manager or Amy? You are certainly out of sorts with this case..methinks..oh well watch and learn SS..
What on earth does that prove? Amy was quite specific about printing 10 by 15 coloured photos on her kodak printer.
She didn't seem so specific in her initial interview in May 07? Can you find her specific detail to the photocopying situation..
There were aso some photocopied pages that were distributed, and maybe that is what the manager was referring to.
Where was this cited? You can't remember or you don't know do you? Weasel words yet again..this thread is hurting..let;s dig a little deeper then..Thanks for the heads up..
Your standard of sleuthing is slipping.
Ive never complained about your wig slipping now have I?
And I think I am perfectly in step with the case (at least as far as the official investigation is concerned).And what official investigation are you in step with? But out of step with the bulk of posters on this forum,Well you choose to come here what do expect? who persist in drawing ever wilder conclusions, producing theories based on certain people lying,Not theories but drawing on actual evidence that substantiates the person/s were indeed Lieing...Do you not find lieing a problem in your life? and ignoring the wholesale slaughter of the herd of scared cows.hindu now..yeah whatever..just go and find me the credible source i asked for..do something useful today...& peace
I'm still hoping for the innocent explanation as to why the Tapas were printing photos within hours of the child going missing and in the pitch dark, strange priorities.
Like I said, why the assumption that she wouldn't be found before light ?
What is unusual is the timing of the printing.
People are out at night searching for a missing 3 year old I doubt whether they really need a picture to check if a 3 year old wandering around PdL in the night is Madeleine.
The matter suggests that people were already planning for the next day,that they knew she wouldn't be found that night
As far as the witnesslying Idon't see any reason for her to lie as the statement does not helpthe McCanns case
The face of a girl roughly a year younger than Madeleine was when she disappeared. Although recent photos were available.
The poor GNR was running around with the picture that was attached to the Maddie file as seen on Amaral's book.
And of course, WHY close the shutters? Because the twins might get a chill! WTF - when Kate arrived in that room, she "immediately knew" that Madeleine had been abducted and I would assume have told Gerry of her suspicions. So why tamper with what would have been the most important source of evidence, why not just move the twins to a less draughty room? If I thought my child had been abducted and there was an open window/shutter scenario, I would have moved my remaining children immediately and made sure no one else disturbed the scene
The photo was supposed to have come straight from McCanns' digital camera - how strange is that?
The police in Portugal were at one stage deeply suspicious about the posters and how come they were produced so early after the child's disappearance. They didn't match the Tapas reception printer, IIRC.
You're right of course, but the essence is that the witness stated that the device was from the McCanns' digital camera and yet the photo printed was already a year out of date. Personally I cannot conceive of having year-old photos on my camera's memory card, I tend to shoot the card full just on a day out somewhere. Perhaps it was a USB but from Gerry's laptop rather than being from the camera and a translation terminology thing?
But what if the device actually was a USB stick with an old picture, rather than the card from a camera ? That would definitely suggest deception.
And what if the compliant Amy made the whole story up, to cover for the fact that there was no way the posters could have been printed on the Ocean Club printer?
And the posters had indeed been brought from England?
"ROB said they used one for the purpose of distributing posters, that night was taken weeks earlier when she had longer hair."
Statement.
Okay. What kind of photo was it”?
Reply “The, it was a, it was a photo of err, it was the one that was being circulated in the, in the days immediately afterwards, I’ve seen so many photographs of her, of Madeleine since, I think it was a photograph that had been taken of her and a relatively number of weeks before and I think with a slightly different, slightly longer hair, erm but it was, it was a fa, it was a fa, it was a relatively full on sort of face on photograph, err and it was printed on a standard size erm four by six err inch, as you know, using the equipment that the people had and we ran off a number of copies of this, erm and several I think were given to the, the GNR”.
And someone holding a 6X4 print on A4 paper is shown on the next page. Worth a read perhaps.
But, the Tapas males spent their time sorting out a photo....not actually searching PDL.
But then again....they already KNEW immediately that she had been 'abducted'....and told everyone that right from the very first moment!
OB isn't the self assured A&E operative he makes out..If OB was fumbling around with Amy & John in the office loading a memory card or memory stick from the Mcs camera..Why produce the totally bizarre image taken before the hols..Logic G states to give the masses/public a better understanding of the profile of the missing child they are searching for ..YOU PRODUCE THE LATEST IMAGE..which is?
Amy why neary 6mths delay before the before the limp second interview? Why was the John Hall interview delayed over month since the 3/5
2..Probably printed on the Thursday..I think the two statements by JH & AT are statements of half-truths and omission..What other reason for the late first statement made by JH..and the printer scenario omitted from the first statement of AT..As I said people in powerful positions are there cos of their power..
Quite, the idea that there would be lots of, or even more than one, little 3 year old hiding in the shrubs and in the dark recesses of PDL, is farcical and even if there were (all pretty, blonde and pink) surely they would want to recover them all!.
Imagining them running around with picture ( a year old !?) in one hand and torch in the other, is like a scene from Carry on Up the Algarve and every bit as slapstick.
Except, this isn't meant to be funny.
First thought that enters your noodle: Why did the PJ not just apprehend the printer that AT copied the Mcs photos from?? This as got to be the most IMPORTANT question of this case thusfar.
As for the 'sighting' of A4-sized images being available for distribution so early on that night/morning: if they are correct then either:
- both ROB and AmyT statements omitted that they copied the image to a memory stick, or scanned one of the smaller images, and ran off the larger prints in the OC office. I cannot accept that both would fail to admit such an obvious action; or
- there were pre-printed images of that dimension already to hand. If this is true then the involvement of AmyT may have been as a 'cover' - one that has failed because her printer (according to my reading of the specifications) did not use A4-sized paper.
The PJ seemed more interested in the provenance of the 10x15 pictures than in any A4-sized images when it would appear.that they should have questioned closely the provenance of ANY and ALL images of the child - and done so very soon into the inquiry.
.. running off to her apartment to dig out a specific copier machine, why doesn't he give this detail?..This leads me to see red flags in this small but vitally important sequence of events..I'm rather perplexed, and vindicated for having this opinion..could be supported by the unusual time lag from 25-6 to nearly 6mths later of AT submitting this rather limp statement of the whereabouts of the printer and all the specs which unsurprisingly correlate very nicely to the suspicious photo paper..why am I not surprised..The time it took is well beyond the normal this was an urgent request in May/June which is shown by the diligence.. regarding ascertaining the provenience of the paper [I reiterate why wasn;t this paper and it's supplier AT ascertained earlier] ..We can surmise a myriad of reasonable conclusions drawing parallels with the apr08 'rogues' statements,the allowed time span between gathering evidence is sadly diminished as time protracts,highlighting a lack of urgency by the PJ to uncover this suspicion they held before redirection/suspension became the 'modus operandi'...Maybe they had only days in reality to pursue the normal methodical processes they were trained to do..
If we go along with this story it leads us to question the reason OB choose photos that were clearly prior to the holiday, whilst knowing there were supposedly recent photos taken in PDL of her? Why not these images..and why when we have established these came from the same camera which took the 'last photo' the very suspicious time lag in eventually printing the alleged 'last photo'? Obvious to my untrained eye these suspicious and contentious anomalies just from the perspective of this particular situation
The PJ seemed more interested in the provenance of the 10x15 pictures than in any A4-sized images when it would appear.that they should have questioned closely the provenance of ANY and ALL images of the child - and done so very soon into the inquiry.
Why didn't they as you suggest thoroughly investigate this? It all smacks of a cover-up and forces above directing proceedings on the ground..how frustrating this must have felt for those PJ investigators who were genuinely go after the perpetrators..the job we all except they are payed and trained to do...It really is a corrupt world we inhabit do you agree
If we go along with this story it leads us to question the reason OB choose photos that were clearly prior to the holiday, whilst knowing there were supposedly recent photos taken in PDL of her? Why not these images..and why when we have established these came from the same camera which took the 'last photo' the very suspicious time lag in eventually printing the alleged 'last photo'? Obvious to my untrained eye these suspicious and contentious anomalies just from the perspective of this particular situation
Yes - me too, especially if that was the same card that supposedly held the 'last' photo.
If that is an accurate translation of what she said then it would seem that the images file(s) from the camera had already been downloaded to a USB 'stick', and it was not the camera flash card that was used.
Statement by
JERONIMO RODRIGUES SALCEDAS ~NO PHOTOGRAPH
George Robin Crossland~ NO PHOTOGRAPH
Shinead Maria Vine ~ NO PHOTOGRAPH
Susan Bernadette Owen ~NO PHOTOGRAPH
Maria De Fatima de Sousa Fernandes ~NO PHOTOGRAPH
Vitor Manuel dos Santos~NO PHOTOGRAPH
Silvia Maria Correia Ramos Batista ~NO PHOTOGRAPH
Kirsty Louise Maryan~NO PHOTOGRAPH [AMYT IS APPARANTLY SEARCHING ALONGSIDE HER 22;30ISH]
Lyndsay Jayne Johnson ~NO PHOTOGRAPH [WAS TOLD ABOUT THE INCIDIENT BY AMYT]22;20
Nelson Luis Da Silva Rodríguez~NO PHOTOGRAPH
Tiago Rochas Barreiros ~ NO PHOTOGRAPH
DANIEL JAMES STUK ~NO PHOTOGRAPH
Nuno Goncalo Marques Vincente Dos Ramos Bernardo ~NO PHOTOGRAPH
Sarah Elizabeth Williamson ~NO PHOTOGRAPH [TOLD BY AMYT]22;30
Leanne Danielle Wagstaff~NO PHOTOGRAPH [TLD BY AMYT]22;30
Joaquim José Moreira Baptista ~NO PHOTOGRAPH
RICARDO ALEXANDRE DA LUZ OLIVEIRA~NO PHOTOGRAPH
CATRIONA SISILE BAKER~ NO PHOTOGRAPH
It does seem odd that Amy didn't mention the photos in the first place, and since she mentioned a 'USB stick' it does suggest to me at least that someone downloaded the photos from the camera onto a laptop or PC earlier, and then onto a USB stick. But wouldn't the PC/laptop computer have to have the specific camera software loaded for this?
I guess the 6x4 prints printed on A4 were actually photocopies taken in later days.
Just to clarify. The Canon A620 cannot download images directly to a USB stick.
It has a cable which plugs into the camera the other end is a USB connector. You cannot plug this USB connecter into a memory stick as they are the same gender.
You have to download to a PC first then copy on to a USB stick.
Of course pictbridge enabled printers allow you to print directly from the camera via the cameras memory card or USB port.
Sans wrote:
Some cameras have either a USB port and images can be saved directly to a USB drive...
I don't think I have ever seen a camera that could transfer data directly to a USB memory stick. Can you name the make and model sans?
Sorry for keep going on about this particular device..What is not clear in my understanding is the use of a 'stick'..Aren't all digital cameras supplied with memory cards? Why then was AT & Russ specific when saying 'stick'...and why not the memory card from the camera...
We return to the USB stick..And how the imges were downloaded on to it prior to the incident? Still not reassured we have the right make/model of camera..please could someone point my in the right direction regards this FACT!
00.18.35
1578
“Did you have any photo of Madeleine in your possession”?
Reply
“Erm we got a photo of Madeleine later on but this is two hours later, erm”.
1578
“So who gave it to you”?
Reply
“Okay well certain, I’m not quite sure what the, the initial, the question made it sound like whoever had one in our possession anyway, I didn’t, erm we got a, we erm, after a portion of my searches, we got hold of erm Kate’s camera, err looked through the digital cam to try and find a picture of Madeleine reasonably recently, reasonably face on and, and with her being the main, the main character on the photograph, erm clearly that that was going through, there were quite a few pictures that were not ideal, so we, we went through those, err and then printed that off, erm all of this taking a reasonable amount of time to try and get hold of equipment and have offices opened and etc., etc”.
1578
“Okay. What kind of photo was it”?
Reply
“The, it was a, it was a photo of err, it was the one that was being circulated in the, in the days immediately afterwards, I’ve seen so many photographs of her, of Madeleine since, I think it was a photograph that had been taken of her and a relatively number of weeks before and I think with a slightly different, slightly longer hair, erm but it was, it was a fa, it was a fa, it was a relatively full on sort of face on photograph, err and it was printed on a standard size erm four by six err inch, as you know, using the equipment that the people had and we ran off a number of copies of this, erm and several I think were given to the, the GNR”.
00.20.21
1578
“I was going to ask you the next question”.
Reply
“Sorry”.
1578
“Was, who did you give the photo to”?
Reply
“Yeah well I think the ones that I had, I took, you know cos obviously they were printing out, you know they were slow you know, we really wanted to get them to the Police fairly quickly, so I took the first couple of copies and took those round to, I think the GNR staff, I presume they were the origin, you know original uniformed Officers, it wasn’t the PJ, it was well before the PJ arrived, erm there were other copies printed off which I don’t know where they got to but I know that Mark WARNER, somebody in Mark WARNER made a poster, or at least an A4 err saying that there’d been, you know, there’d been a, err an abduction and that Madeleine was missing and that was circulated around the next morning, so somebody had, had, had that photograph and used it for that poster but I took, I don’t know two or three copies maybe and gave them to the Police. I actually think ultimately there may have been more copies printed off and somebody else gave even more copies to them as well, err and I think some of the other copies were shown, were just shown to people around who were going on the searches but erm personally”.
1578
“The copies that you had, you only gave to the Police”?
Reply
“I gave it to the Police, just to the Police”.
"I think the most important thing is that the model of printer AT was using DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN LCD SCREEN so if printing from a USB stick you cannot preview or select a particular photo. The Kodak model AT was using is designed to dock your camera to it - namely a kodak easyshare camera."
Thank you veritas, that's what I was asking about earlier. If you can't preview pictures, that would suggest that there only was one picture on the device.
I wonder why that should be and where it originally came from ?
On this date, at 15.00 we went to the Ocean Club where we were received by the Maintenance and Service Manager, Silvia Baptista, and by the Mark Warner director, John Hill. We asked them to show us all the printers and photocopiers existing at the OC, which were operational at the time of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and that were used to print colour copies of Madeleine’s photo.
Silvia Baptista informed us that at the request of John Hill and his wife D****, hundreds of colour copies of a photo of Madeleine McCann were printed on 4th May 2007 with the aim of distributing them in Pda L and Lagos. For this purpose a colour photocopier, Toshiba, in the main OC reception was used as well as an HP laser printer, HP Color Laserjet 2840 located at a desk at the Ocean Country company, a colour laser printer Epsom Aculaser C1100 located on the desk of the administrative secretary and a colour laser printer HP Color Laserjet 1600 located on John Hill’s desk.
On his part, John Hill informed us that the printing of large quantities of Madeleine’s photo was carried out by himself with the help of his wife, at the request of Russell O’Brien, a member of the McCann’s group of friends, John Hill stated that the photograph the colour prints were made from a mobile data disk of the “memory stick” kind that Russell O’Brien gave him on the morning of 4th May.
They both stipulated that these were the only colour printers and photocopiers in existence at the Ocean Club and that there was no other place with the capacity for colour printing.
+++++++++++++++
00.18.35 1578 “Did you have any photo of Madeleine in your possession”?
Reply “Erm we got a photo of Madeleine later on but this is two hours later, erm”.
1578 “So who gave it to you”?
Reply “Okay well certain, I’m not quite sure what the, the initial, the question made it sound like whoever had one in our possession anyway, I didn’t, erm we got a, we erm, after a portion of my searches, we got hold of erm Kate’s camera, err looked through the digital cam to try and find a picture of Madeleine reasonably recently, reasonably face on and, and with her being the main, the main character on the photograph, erm clearly that that was going through, there were quite a few pictures that were not ideal, so we, we went through those, err and then printed that off, erm all of this taking a reasonable amount of time to try and get hold of equipment and have offices opened and etc., etc”.
Why does he come across so unconvincingly when asked a simple question?
Maybe it was the "who gave it to you" part of the question and he had to stop himself saying "Gerry gave it to me on a USB memory stick" From this snippet of ROB 'rogue' interview..he seems to have gone all dumb since the 3/5 when he asked AT for the data from his USB stick...I still think there is something in this sequence of events that could well be the gatekeeper to the bigger picture,..we're getting warm..as threads that are often closing in to a hot topic get the cold troll shoulder.....keep digging!!!
Umm, ‘And Kat or one of the other Nannies went to their flat to retrieve a printer or something that would connect to a printer and then the pictures were printed in the office off the small reception portal’, there’s a little office in there”.
Who were those present that were handed these postcard images? Why wasn't none of the OC employees present? What did JH mean by distributed to other sites...Was there evidence of this? Why NO mention of the AT account of things? Was JH really first notified at 22;28..why were witnesses that night saying they saw him much before 22;30? Why was the PJ so slow in ascertaining this printer and the relevant USB stick...the same stick OB fails to recollect in his 'rogues' interview [so we are lead to believe]? Who was AT. Receptionist, Child Minder, or Service Manager? Where is she today?
There's some questions for start
sans wrote:
The USB Anywhere connects two mass-storage devices....blah, blah, blah
You don't actually believe that do you?
So you think he looked through the images on KMs camera, selected an image, whipped out his "Belkin USB anywhere device" connected it to KMs camera, connected a USB memory stick to the other end, downloaded an old photo of Madeleine to the memory stick, then found someone with a photo printer that unfortunately only docks with Kodak easyshare cameras - but fortunately you have already downloaded the photo to a USB memory stick that this printer does read so you can plug your memory stick in and print off the required images of the missing girl.
Well done sans, it's always the simple solutions that sometimes get overlooked.
ROB wouldn't know what a "Belkin USB anywhere device" was if it came up and bit him on the a***!
Different direction to approach this period: Firstly ROB is not willing to co-operate in a direct manner that is obvious by the rogue interview and the omission from earlier statements...
What we don't know or has been described is the particular actions of ALL those sitting in the esplanade on 3/5...we have first reactions then nothing..so lets reconstruct the scenario from the alleged last visit 21;30 to the alarm by K at 22;00[official narrative]...we know the group headed back to the apartment...except DW..we then have interjections by OC employees who mention G&K and the odd mention[later rogue statements] DP & FP..
What I'm trying to deduce here is the whereabouts of MO & OB during the mallee? We seem to have lost them? I have taken the fact they have children which we must except if your friend is one childless your first reaction would be to check your own are still in their beds asleep..So if we allow for the women to head back to their respected apartments..we must concur the men would be out in the search parties that were organised by the OC & GNR and independent groups of citizens helping to find M...
OK! Now we have set the premise..we anaylsis what is official stated of the timeline between 22;30 -04;00.
Who saw MO or DP searching? Who initiated the idea of the photograph being printed? Did OB..who can't even remember the name of the nanny or item he was handing to AT.. at around 0;00h by her account...Who was present when OB was handing out these 6x4 postcards? We have yet see an independant witness statement that can corroborate this!
This was alleged the GNR officers were in receipt.. according to ATs statement..but if the early memory stick episode was not the same photo-printing situation JH is asserting in his statement what time did print photos of and by who's authourity?...We have the new shift[00.00h] worker @ the reception..who fails to recollect this printing session....Are we looking at this incident from an indicating to it being premediate? I'm starting to think along those lines...at this moment in time...
What OB is at pains to avoid is implicate any over person in offering the photo/s the manner in which was dwnloaded etc, which is strange.. in any normal abduction the innocent person/s would be bending over backwards to give clear constructive information/details if it would help get the little girl back ASAP...I'm shocked if those 'rogue' interviews are kosher? based on the obvious stuttering and incoherent answers given the person OB is certainly showing signs of cover-up..Shame the LP haven't the B alls to re-interview this guy.more
To stress again the role I believe JH was playing that night should be worth a shining a spotlight on. He obviously forgot to omitt the time he first heard about this incident if other co-workers witness him there @OC well before 22;30!...I think he's also implying a much later situation in regards to the photographs in order to suppress the AT&OB earlier encounter...
What is vital for us to progress on this line of inquiry is the so-called 'others present' that AT is quoting as seeing in the reception loca..Who were these people? Where are their statements? Did they notice OB and his memory stick?...What were the 'real images' that were printed and on what/who's say so? OB should have been pushed harder on this.by the PJ/LP.
The notion that a younger child image is more alike to the present weeks photos which were on the same memory card in the same camera.. is an absolute joke to suggest by OB..did the police officer fall off his/her chair on hearing this?
Has AT visitd recently the Mcs house or met in confidence a member of the Mc team? Why was she noted by fellow employees out searching with them?..Again the premise of this investigation must come back to who witnessed the meeting between OB&AT that night? Who were the others present who were given these initial photos? At what precise time did the last photo get printed? Who choose that particular image and at what PC was the image uploaded to the memory stick which AT asserts?
Ask Rus for a through explanation on how he come by the memory stick and it's contents..you will be pleasantly surprised to his answer?
It's the whole notion of distributing photos of Madeleine when it's past midnight and pitch black that's incredulous.
So you find a 3 year old wandering on her own and you have to cross reference with the image they were distributing! As if PdL was awash with babies wandering the streets on their own.
It was all part of the 'abduction' story - same as 'close the borders' and 'which way is Morocco?'
Alex Woolfall in the days after:
"They were trying to work out what to do that might help generate images of her. They were desperately keen to publicise her face.”
The McCanns had photographs of Madeleine on their digital camera, which Mr Woolfall began transferring to a laptop computer. “I said to Kate, ‘Let’s try to identify pictures where her face is visible’. Downloading the images was a very difficult process for them. It was upsetting.
(...)
Mr Woolfall transmitted the photographs to the Press Association in London, from where they were distributed to the media. The portfolio included the now famous image of Madeleine wearing a hat on a tennis court.
So why was this apparently done twice? once by ROB and later by AW?
he states that he does not know as he stayed with his daughter E**e O’Brien in the apartment.
I'm going to stretch my neck out and argue, RoB was not the person who confronts AT with the memory stick that night...It was another member of the group.
3 times seemingly, (according to ROB,John Hill, and AW.
ROB/AT on the 3rd May/early hours of 4th May.
John Hill later still on the 4th May.
And AW some days later.
Yes good point Nicked, someone (say ROB) could have already uploaded all the camera images to let's say a laptop in order to then download the selected image onto a USB stick for printing, then even if that laptop was in the friends' apartments and available to K&G, if it didn't have an email set up connection AW would have needed to upload them from camera again on the laptop they then used to email them to media.
It does seem unusual that amidst such chaos, someone would be uploading images between 10-12 pm instead of searching.
RoB makes no comment on who uploads the initial memory stick..read his 'rogue statement'..as this man omits the event in his PJ [2]07 statements...
Skeptical...Yes there were [3] PDL photo-printing sessions...What is under discussion on this thread is the 0;00h incident concerning AT & OB & the 20-30 prints
OB states he spent NO time searching camera images for downloading on to a memory stick... this only becomes apparent in that rogue interview some 11 months after the fact...Anyone care to explain why this was?
RoB makes no comment on who uploads the initial memory stick..read his 'rogue statement'..as this man omits the event in his PJ [2]07 statements...
Skeptical...Yes there were [3] PDL photo-printing sessions...What is under discussion on this thread is the 0;00h incident concerning AT & OB & the 20-30 prints
OB states he spent NO time searching camera images for downloading on to a memory stick... this only becomes apparent in that rogue interview some 11 months after the fact...Anyone care to explain why this was?
Interesting Tripz - maybe they used "Belkin Anywhere Paper"?
Most portable photo printers can read directly from camera memory cards. You pop the card in a slot and they have a small LCD screen for selecting images to print.
Is it yet another co-incidence that the portable printer available was a Kodak Easyshare, which is designed to dock with Kodak cameras, therefore does not have an LCD screen and does not read memory cards.
It seems as if RoB was psychic, as he made sure the selected image was transferred to a USB memory stick which just happens to be the only other way you can print from the easyshare without docking a kodak camera to it.
Personally I don't buy sans_souci's idea that RoB just happened to be equipped with the "Belkin USB anywhere device" and he doesn't mention using a laptop to download the image.
I think the only thing he was equipped with was the "Belkin Bulllshit Allthetime Device" which seemed to be readily available in PDL at the time.
We have a problem people ...It's established the memory stick/camera memory card are incompatible to the Kodak printer belonging to AT. We have NO evidence of people who were present at the OC reception receiving this 20-30 postcard photos of M? We only have a GNR officer observing these prints on a table in the Mcs apartment? AT you are pwned!!! Tripz.
"It's established the memory stick/camera memory card are incompatible to the Kodak printer belonging to AT."
That is incorrect.
The Kodak printer cannot read camera memory cards unless they are in a compatible Kodak camera, but does have a slot for a USB memory device.
Using the USB stick, you cannot select which picture to print . The printer would attempt to print every picture on the stick.
According to the PJ, there would appear to be 2 different images printed.
When she came close to the elements of the GNR she found that behind her was Gerry, Madeleine's father, accompanied by another man whose identity she doesn't remember. Then Gerry kneeled down, hit the floor with both hands, positioning himself as if he were a praying Arab, and screamed twice of anger, what he said being impossible to understand.
Then Gerry stood up and accompanied her (the witness) and the other man in the car of the GNR to the apartment 5A.
She entered the apartment and asked for the passports of all elements of the family, and also photographs of the missing girl. She went with Gerry to the GNR car to hand over the requested documents.
+++++++++
Amy Ellen Tierney ~Creche Worker
When on the night of 3rd May, at about 24.00, she was at her desk at the Tapas bar, inside the resort, when at a certain time, one of the friends of the McCann couple, Russell, asked for a USB memory stick reader, in order to print photographs of Madeleine. Immediately the deponent replied that she did not have an USB reader, but that she had a printer with this hardware[?], which could read from memory sticks.?
She went to her room and returned to the Tapas with the printer where she printed out 20 to 30 photographs of the girl, using her own paper, in 10x15 format mentioned previously. The memory stick containing the photos belonged to the McCann couple, and came from their camera.
She thinks that all of this took place at about 24.00 on 3rd May 2007. She presumes that she handed all of the photos to Russell, who distributed some to those present, the rest would be for the police authorities.
I believe the above statement was taken in April 08? How clear and polished from the earlier one by AT..We now know the memory stick belonged along with the camera to the MCs..Everything one suspects by this time would be easily corroborated..how a golden chance was squandered back in May/June 07.... [/color]
Why would RoB approach Amy Tierney at midnight with his USB memory stick when according to Ms Batista she had already given photographs of Madeleine to the GNR?
Russell O’Brienn doesn’t mention the photso to Amy Tierney in his firt tstaement:
RoB statement 11.05.07
[excerpt]
and the deponent with some other people decided to start looking around the apartment blocks, and in the apartments, to see if they could find Madeleine.
• In the searches they carried out, after the disappearance, they did not identify any element/person/or suspicious object.
• Because he is asked, states that he cannot describe the state of the children’s room after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, because he never entered there. When they were alerted to the situation, they immediately left the table, and the deponent immediately began searching the immediate areas, heading towards the village and the beach zone.?
• Questioned regarding if he noticed whether the blind to the children’s room was up or down, states that he cannot answer because he did not look. He remembers that when he went to check on his children, together with Matthew Oldfield, they were talking and did not look to the windows.
• Questioned whether he knows if Matthew Oldfield went, or not, to check on the McCann children, he states that he does not know as he stayed with his daughter E**e O’Brien in the apartment, but heard, after, a comment that he was supposed to have gone, but that in the checking, he went to the outside of the door to the room, saw the twins, and not Madeleine McCann’s bed, which was situated at an angle which did not give him visual contact.
• States that he has no suspicion to present, and doe not remember any detail of situation that could be related to the disappearance of little Madeleine McCann.
[source:DVD files]
Zilch.....Nothing....
For discussion, please see this thread: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1179-amy-tierney-and-those-mysterious-6-x-4-photos-extracts-from-the-research-thread-on-3as
