Mysteries of a Non-Cryptic Photograph

Sometimes, perfectly innocent events, for some reason, take an importance never meant for them to have, by anyone, much less by the one who caused it. This, perfectly innocent picture, is, in our opinion such a case. It contains much more information that the photographer or whoever published it ever intended to reveal:

This picture was taken from Pamalam, a site that dedicates itself in gathering and putting together the most diverse documentation and material for public consultation that has been published and/or photographed about the Maddie Affair. This picture has the following information on the site:

Carol Tranmer gate ( Source sun)
BitsPerSample - 8 8 8
ImageDescription - PICTURE BY LEE THOMPSON 17/09/07 GV OF THE MARK WARNER OCEAN CLUB APARTMENTS IN PRAIA DA LUZ IN PORTUGAL AS SEEN FROM AN APARTMENT TWO FLOORS ABOVE THE ONE MADELEINE McCANN WENT MISSING FROM IN MAY THIS YEAR. THE MCCANNS APARTMENT IS BOTTOM LEFT OF THE PICTURE.
SamplesPerPixel - 3
XResolution - 72
YResolution - 72
ResolutionUnit - Inch
Software - ImageReady
DateTime - 2008-04-17T15:50:41+01:00
Artist - LEE THOMPSON ExifOffset - 472
ExifImageWidth - 520
ExifImageHeight - 347

As said, Pamalam's site captures information gathered from various sources, and places it there not providing personal opinions about its data (although I remember reading one particular personal opinion, but it was from a contributor and not from Pamalam), so we assume that the above information is, like all other on that site, taken as was seen from the source in question: The Sun.

Let’s see the facts, taken from above, we consider relevant:

#1, Source: The Sun

#2, Photographer: LEE THOMPSON

#3, Location: FROM AN APARTMENT TWO FLOORS ABOVE THE ONE MADELEINE McCANN WENT MISSING FROM

#4, Date: 17/09/07 or 2008-04-17

#5, Title: Carol Tranmer gate

Let’s start, as is obvious, with fact #3, LOCATION. It states quite clearly, that it was taken two floors above Apartment 5A, that means from the second floor, above Mrs Fenn’s apartment on the first floor.

Being I of the inquisitive mind, I decided to check if this was so. First, we’re able to see that nearest point to the street of each of the apartment’s balconies, first and second, are not exactly perpendicular to each other. The end of the first floor balcony is closer to the street than the one of the second floor:

By using the intersection of two simple straight lines, we can determine that if the picture was taken from the point of the second floor balcony nearest to the street, it would have been like so:

Equally, if the picture was taken from the point of the first floor balcony nearest to the street, it would have been like so:

Apparently it’s indifferent from where it was taken, but that is not the case. If we place these two simulations side by side, we can compare them and be able to detect the differences between them:

So, you can easily see that if the picture was taken from the second floor, the area represented in red below would be missing from it, but IS NOT MISSING, and would be seen in it, if taken from the first floor, as IT CAN BE SEEN:
 
Almost insignificant in quantity but full of significance, as this PROVES that the picture was NOT taken from the second floor, the one above Mrs Fenn, but from the one we've now come to know as the one belonging to the elderly lady, the first floor.

Only, as can be seen, from the apartment ABOVE the McCann’s is it possible to take a picture so near Rua Agostinho da Silva, and this is where THIS particular picture was taken:

That is the apartment, as said before and so many times repeated, where Mrs Fenn says she lives, which is the one above the McCanns.

It’s clear that the photographer, in his attempt to get the widest possible angle from where he was, stood up against the furthest wall in "Fenn’s balcony" and got one good and pretty picture indeed.

And don’t forget that the gate seen below, the “Carol Tranmer gate”, is basically TWO floors below Mrs Fenn’s apartment, exactly as it appears in the picture. It certainly doesn't seem to be THREE floors below as it would appear if the picture had been taken from the apartment above Mrs Fenn's.

Perfectly innocent, and almost justifiable, if not for the fact that it was said to be taken from where it was NOT. And please do not attempt a discrepancy here. Remember, we’ve already had one, in which none of us believed in:

A difference of ONE floor in possible TWO cannot be taken as such.

Eventually it could’ve been said "taken from the second floor”, but it doesn’t. It’s quite clear where it says from where it was taken. Very, very precise and specific.

Now about Facts #1 and #2, SOURCE and PHOTOGRAPHER: The Sun, being the source makes perfect sense, so nothing is to be said about that. About the photographer, LEE THOMPSON, I searched the tabloid’s website, and did not get anything related to this person, much less anything linking him with Maddie.

And nothing guarantees that he’s in anyway related with the tabloid, or that he's not, and honestly, that's quite irrelevant.

Fact #4, DATE, we have two of them, one where it’s clearly said that it was taken on Sep 17th, 2007. but there’s another date, April 17th, 2008, which seems more related with technical details, such as being downloaded, so we’ll assume that it was the on the first date mentioned that the picture was effectively taken.

But that is not important. What is important is that the referred dates:

- BOTH are after Aug 18th, 2007, date The Sun published Mrs Fenn's complaint that she hadn’t yet been heard by the PJ; - BOTH are after Aug 20th, 2007, date in which Mrs Fenn had her statement taken; - BOTH are after The McCanns left Portugal;

- BOTH are before April 22nd, 2008, date in which Carol Tranmer-Fenn's made her rogatory statement; - BOTH are before any public release of the PJ Files. Fact #5, TITLE: CAROL TRANMER GATE.

We’ve contacted Pamalam, and was confirmed that the title of this photo was given by the site and not by The Sun.

If the photo had been taken in before May 3rd, 2007, the intent of such a photo would be clear that it was for marketing purposes, such as having it on the MW OC Website, although, as I’ll show you why, a much better picture could have been taken for such a reason.

We now know why the title appeared, but let's try and understand the reason why the picture was taken in the first place.

It was, as far as I can see, for one of the following reasons:

REASON #1, to highlight the gate that Carol Tranmer-Fenn saw. Not likely or reasonable. As far as we know, the only people to know what effectively Carol saw, were the Leicester Police who received her statement back in the UK. Pamalam’s title comes from looking at the picture and already knowing the files, and this knowledge has nothing to do with the one that whoever took the picture had.

REASON #2, a souvenir photo. Not likely or reasonable. The Apartment is privately owned and not rented to tourists. And it’s not from Mrs Fenn herself or from any of her visiting relatives.

REASON #3, commercial reasons. It makes sense, likely, just NOT reasonable, at least on those the terms stated on where it was taken. It makes sense, because as I said, it’s a beautiful picture of general view of the Tapas Complex. But why bother a resident to take such a picture, when one floor up you can take one other, with basically the same angle (not as wide, but the details left out, as we saw, don’t seem to be that relevant, do they?), given the fact that it would most likely be unoccupied, even if only when in-between rentals?

Plus with a much, much better view, as from the second floor, two apartments above the McCann apartment, you can see the tennis courts, that from this one, as all can see, you can’t?

But this photo appears to have come from The Sun and not from MW OC, which explains why it doesn’t appear on any MW websites for publicity.

So, The Sun reporter, decided to knock on Mrs Fenn door, an ELUSIVE and RECLUSIVE elderly lady (that’s the way they’ve made her been seen like), and ask her to open her door so that he could take a picture from her balcony, of a general view, when he could have contacted the OC Management and take the picture from one of the top apartments?

This, one must remember, was not asked following one of those initials interviews in late August, but, at best, about a month later. When the photographer took this photograph, he went specifically there to take this photograph.

Look at the picture, and tell me what was so important that it JUST HAD to be taken from THAT SPECIFIC balcony. See anything? I don’t either.

But, who is one to go against another's will just because reason states otherwise?

Many people have done assumingly unreasonable things, and lived none the worse. So if Mr. Thompson decided that that balcony was THE PLACE to take a picture of the general view of the Tapas Complex, one has just to accept that fact. He wanted a picture to go with some article about the McCanns, so fashionable at the time, from THERE, and he got it!

But then why say it was taken from the apartment above from where it was?

Unless… no, it's silly. You really want to read it? Well, YOU asked for it... what if the apartment above the McCanns, where the picture was taken, ISN'T WHERE Mrs Fenn lives?

Then, Mr Thompson, who used effectively an unoccupied apartment take the photo, but, after taking it, was reminded when he went back to the office by someone that in that particular apartment was supposed to be living a lovely elderly lady that had even showed the world how mean and negligent the McCanns were.

That would be a reason to change the caption of the photo to “AS SEEN FROM AN APARTMENT TWO FLOORS ABOVE THE ONE MADELEINE McCANN WENT MISSING”.

 Now, I’m rather being silly, aren’t I?