Simple enough question, to which the answer should have just been no.
Who is "we"?
"whoever" had one in "our"..."I" didn't "we" erm "we"..."my" searches.."we" got hold of erm Kate's camera..."we" went through those er
If there is one thing this tells me this man has a clear picture in his head of someone else being involved in this process (if it even took place) but he does not want to mention that person and the second question again was so clear and simple, who gave it to you? but he just does not answer, does he!
This is a man who has rambled on to the police for countless hours on two solid days about mind numbing detail and trivia but when he is asked the serious questions, when did you last see Madeleine erm ll months on I cannot really be certain she might have been but I am not sure e.g. at the creche on the afternoon...; and what kind of picture was it erm I have seen so many pictures of her, you know (do forgive me Russell and Dave but from reading you actually I don't) the vital details about little Maddie this is where his memory completely leaves him. Very strange that Russell! So anyway what he is tellling us here, highly incredible though it may seem, is that he or we actually went through Kate's camera, within two hours looking for a picture of Maddie on that holiday but they were just not good enough of her, but, as luck would have it, there was one on there, several weeks old, with slightly longer hair. All within the space of two hours he managed to get a printer and even print it out on normal photograph size paper 6" x 4" and give it to the police. A4 copies of those appearing the next morning which is a lot more believable because it is very easy to just copy a photo, even off a photocopying machine onto normal size paper which is of course A4. What I just find simply incredible is that Kate apparently had a pic of Maddie several weeks old that was just great on her camera, but not one of that actual holiday and Russell (we that is) managed to get it printed up just like a proper little picture. The thing is Russell if you had a printer and you wanted to find Maddie why did you go to all the trouble to just print out normal 6 x 4s?
I know you hate the media I read that but I promise you this much, every few days, I am going to take a piece of your quite incredible statements to the Police (and there are loads) and write a little bit about it, but just to be completely fair, I am going to publish what you said as well, is that OK? I am not the media as such, I am just an ordinary woman who wants justice for a little girl, who you simply cannot remember, apparently, the slightest little detail about, so please bear with me.
Second day of grilling at Leicester Police on 10.4.08:
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”.
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”.