Richard Hall's film 'When Madeleine Died?' uploaded to YouTube 19th Feb

[Lace]

Isn't it strange,  the last photo of Madeleine by the pool has been shown for years,  yet no one who holidayed at the same time as the McCann's have ever said 'hey how come their wearing sun glasses and sun hats,  the weather was over cast that day'     only some conspiracy 'researchers'  seem to have come up with the idea that the sun wasn't shining.  As to it being cold late in the evening,   that happens in Britain,  it can be a lovely sunny day then turn cold towards night.   All this nonsense of they said it was cold and they said that they had to wear more clothes.  they were eating OUTSIDE for gods sake.    It's all just  to make out Madeleine wasn't alive that week,    total lunacy.

[jassi]

Probably anyone who was holidaying at the same time is now keeping their head well down and saying nothing.

[ShiningInLuz]

Wasn't the Crimewatch programme to jog people's memories?

The latest Richard Hall epic seems to be of a different nature.

I am wary of trying to summarise other people's theories, as it is so easy to make a mistake.

However, I understand the gist of is it he thinks there is no solid evidence that Madeleine was alive after Sun 29 Apr.  I am not sure if Mr Hall actually thinks Madeleine is dead.  And if he does, I am not sure he has an opinion as to precisely when Madeleine died.  He appears simply to be peeling off evidence that supports Madeleine being alive after that, and explaining why there may be doubts about the credibility of such evidence.

I would prefer not to discuss Mr Hall's overall theory again, firstly because I am not here as a proxy for Mr Hall, and secondly because I have no intention of becoming an 'expert' on Mr Hall's 4hr DVD.

There are certain aspects appearing in the DVD that intrigue me, and that I am at a loss to explain at the moment.  The emergence of The Last Photo on 24 May deserves deeper consideration than relying on an implicit trust in the McCanns. (I do hope no one is going to make the mistake of saying this makes me a 'sceptic'.)

[Mr Gray]

Totally and utterly incorrect.

And since the question was about why a serious programme might makes errors, also totally irrelevant.

So called errors it should have read
The film showed the McCanns goi g to the millennium and a man carrying a child
The film makers did not expect a bunch of armchair detectives to dissect every minute detail
The errors as you see them are tota tally unimportant
A better explanation if you do not agree

[Lace]

Probably anyone who was holidaying at the same time is now keeping their head well down and saying nothing.

No one said anything when the photo came out,  surely anyone living around that area would have spotted the fact that Gerry had sunglasses on and the children were wearing sun hats?   It would look suspicious if the day the photo was taken was actually cold and cloudy wouldn't it.

If they said something now then no doubt they would be liars or in cahoots with the McCann's.

[ShiningInLuz]

Probably anyone who was holidaying at the same time is now keeping their head well down and saying nothing.

I am aware of one fairly recent attempt to obtain some very innocuous information via such a route, but it looks like head down mode exists outside of Luz too.

[Carana]

Is there any particular reason why Hall couldn't phrase the title in standard English?

[ShiningInLuz]

So called errors it should have read
The film showed the McCanns goi g to the millennium and a man carrying a child
The film makers did not expect a bunch of armchair detectives to dissect every minute detail
The errors as you see them are tota tally unimportant
A better explanation if you do not agree

Errors.

The film never showed the McCanns going to the Millennium.  I cannot think why the fact that the McCanns went to the Millennium twice has any relevance whatsoever to Crimewatch 2013.

The film makers should have realised that multiple forums go over the case in considerable detail.  As to whether the film makers cared, I cannot possibly answer.

I have given examples of errors.  I have explained why the buggy tale matters.

I can't remember if I explained Smithman but here is the shortest version I can manage.  Smithman got widely publicised in Portugal around Amaral's book as the key sighting.  Smithman got widely publicised in Portugal around Crimewatch time as THE new suspect wanted by OG.  If Smithman actually recognised himself (which I doubt) then the widely publicised tale of him heading to the beach or the sea is a key piece of misinformation to persuade Smithman he could not be the man, assuming he did not head to the beach.

You appear to be saying putting out accurate information in a reconstruction does not matter.  I find that incredible.  I hold a different opinion.

[Alice Purjorick]

Isn't it strange,  the last photo of Madeleine by the pool has been shown for years,  yet no one who holidayed at the same time as the McCann's have ever said 'hey how come their wearing sun glasses and sun hats,  the weather was over cast that day'     only some conspiracy 'researchers'  seem to have come up with the idea that the sun wasn't shining.  As to it being cold late in the evening,   that happens in Britain,  it can be a lovely sunny day then turn cold towards night.   All this nonsense of they said it was cold and they said that they had to wear more clothes.  they were eating OUTSIDE for gods sake.    It's all just  to make out Madeleine wasn't alive that week,    total lunacy.

1) Don't worry about it! The Time Life photo of Lee Harvey Oswald in his back yard is being argued about 52 years on.

2) Errm, err, um, like probably.

[Carana]

1) Don't worry about it! The Time Life photo of Lee Harvey Oswald in his back yard is being argued about 52 years on.

2) Errm, err, um, like probably.

So does the Loch Ness Monster...

[blonk]

The anecdotal evidence from people who were actually in Praia da Luz on the day in question stating there was an improvement in the weather swings it for me. 

I think it would be fair to say that both the anecdotal evidence from people in Praia da Luz on that day (Thursday 3 May) and any reliable weather date we have for that day broadly coincide. I think we can probably agree the following:

1. There had been cooler, cloudier conditions on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

2. During the course of Thursday, these cooler, cloudier conditions gradually yielded to warmer, sunnier weather in the late afternoon/early evening.

3. That Last Photo is said to have been taken at 2.29pm Portugal/GB time.

4. Around 1pm, the temperature peaked at only 17C (63F), then fell back a little, then rose late afternoon to 19F (66C).

5. Cloud cover probably abated gradually during the day.

6. It is quite possible that there could have been a sunny interval causing the sun to shine at 2.29pm that afternoon.

7. It was unarguably warm and sunny on the Sunday, with a temperature maximum around 2.29pm of 21C (70F).

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

However, whether the sun was actually shining at 2.29pm is essentially beside the point.

The Last Photo is evidence. It is a genuine, unphotoshopped, photo.

A dispute has arisen as to whether it might have been taken on a different day.

We are entitled, inter alia, to examine the contents of the photograph to see which date best fits what we see. I appreciate that the EXIF metadata say it was taken on 3 May, but then we know it is a relatively simple issue to alter the metadata.

This is what we see in the photograph:

* Gerry in shorts
* Gerry in T-shirt
* Gerry with sunglasses
* Gerry with sheen of perspiration on his forehead
* Gerry with his feet in a cold pool
* Madeleine in light clothing - no trousers
* Madeleine with sun-hat
* Amelie in light clothing - no trousers
* Amelie with sun-hat
* No sign of any cooling breeze.

Also:

1. Although it was claimed that Gerry bought sunglasses at the beach on Tuesday, it is surely more likely than not that he brought a pair of sunglasses with him on holiday.

2. The 'Last Photo' scene of Gerry and his two children by the pool on a sunny day was actually embellished in the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special, which showed Gerry, Kate and Madeleine happily kicking their feet in the water.

Now, I am fully aware that on this forum there are some people who are very well informed and briefed.

The very same people are good, persistent debaters who generally give no quarter.

I respect their knowledge and abilities.

However, given the information we have about the Last Photo, and given what we know about the likely weather at 2.29pm on Sunday and Thursday respectively, no matter how hard people may try and get round the situation, it is inevitable that many people, examining the evidence impartially, may well draw the conclusion that it is far more likely than not that the Last Photo was taken on the Sunday.                  


                     

[Alfred R Jones]

The Crimewatch 2013 special was supposed to be a serious, fact based programme.  Again, I have not tracked all of the major and minor errors so here is just one of each.

Minor.  On the first day the McCanns arrive in Luz with Madeleine going ahead and the parents bring up the rear, pushing the twins in a double buggy.  The McCanns did not have a double buggy at that time.  If they had, perhaps they would have used the Millennium more, making 'planned abduction' much less probable.

Major.  Smithman came down Primary School Street and was then seen heading towards the sea.  No, he wasn't.  He was last seen 2m to Aoife's left when she had reached the top of the Street of Little Stairs.  That allowed Aoife to look left and see him face on.  If the man had headed towards the sea, she would have seen his right profile.

Why did a supposedly serious Crimewatch get such information wrong?  To answer that would take me into the realms of speculation, so I'll leave it at that.

Could you clarify for us how these two errors in the programme may have prevented someone watching from coming forward with information that may have been relevant to the investigation?

[ferryman]

I suppose another point is that talk of 'errors' supposes that the files we read (on line) are, themselves, accurate.

We have absolutely no gauge of that.

The original investigative team have the original, source, material.

We may be second-guessing accurate information held be the investigative team ....

[Mr Gray]

  I hold a different opinion.

Fair enough

[Lace]

I think it would be fair to say that both the anecdotal evidence from people in Praia da Luz on that day (Thursday 3 May) and any reliable weather date we have for that day broadly coincide. I think we can probably agree the following:

1. There had been cooler, cloudier conditions on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.

2. During the course of Thursday, these cooler, cloudier conditions gradually yielded to warmer, sunnier weather in the late afternoon/early evening.

3. That Last Photo is said to have been taken at 2.29pm Portugal/GB time.

4. Around 1pm, the temperature peaked at only 17C (63F), then fell back a little, then rose late afternoon to 19F (66C).

5. Cloud cover probably abated gradually during the day.

6. It is quite possible that there could have been a sunny interval causing the sun to shine at 2.29pm that afternoon.

7. It was unarguably warm and sunny on the Sunday, with a temperature maximum around 2.29pm of 21C (70F).

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

However, whether the sun was actually shining at 2.29pm is essentially beside the point.

The Last Photo is evidence. It is a genuine, unphotoshopped, photo.

A dispute has arisen as to whether it might have been taken on a different day.

We are entitled, inter alia, to examine the contents of the photograph to see which date best fits what we see. I appreciate that the EXIF metadata say it was taken on 3 May, but then we know it is a relatively simple issue to alter the metadata.

This is what we see in the photograph:

* Gerry in shorts
* Gerry in T-shirt
* Gerry with sunglasses
* Gerry with sheen of perspiration on his forehead
* Gerry with his feet in a cold pool
* Madeleine in light clothing - no trousers
* Madeleine with sun-hat
* Amelie in light clothing - no trousers
* Amelie with sun-hat
* No sign of any cooling breeze.

Also:

1. Although it was claimed that Gerry bought sunglasses at the beach on Tuesday, it is surely more likely than not that he brought a pair of sunglasses with him on holiday.

2. The 'Last Photo' scene of Gerry and his two children by the pool on a sunny day was actually embellished in the BBC Crimewatch McCann Special, which showed Gerry, Kate and Madeleine happily kicking their feet in the water.

Now, I am fully aware that on this forum there are some people who are very well informed and briefed.

The very same people are good, persistent debaters who generally give no quarter.

I respect their knowledge and abilities.

However, given the information we have about the Last Photo, and given what we know about the likely weather at 2.29pm on Sunday and Thursday respectively, no matter how hard people may try and get round the situation, it is inevitable that many people, examining the evidence impartially, may well draw the conclusion that it is far more likely than not that the Last Photo was taken on the Sunday.                  


                     

Why is it more likely Gerry brought sun glasses with him?   because you want to dismiss that he bought sun glasses on the Tuesday,   from my experiences with my husband,   it is very likely that Gerry forgot to take his sunglasses with him.

Gerry with a sheen of perspiration on his forehead,  you know this how?   It could be sunscreen.   Madeleine's shoulder is shining is that perspiration,  I would think that is sunscreen

I have no doubts what so ever that it is sunny on  the Thursday and that was the last photograph taken of Madeleine.    Why on earth would they say it was the last photograph taken of Madeleine on the Thursday she disappeared if it wasn't a sunny day and people would know that it wasn't a sunny day and say so?


,