Thanks!

by **tigger** 10.10.11 16:41

Marian wrote:Here's a much clearer version of the young Kate photo.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks Imnotmerylstreep and Marian! Very useful, because it's the same ears! Must have a look at Kate's photos to see if they were eventually pinned back. Looks like Maddie inherited Kate's ears. According to the American expert who aged Maddie's photo, she had Gerry's nose. Now, in most photographs her nose is photoshopped, even when nothing else is. I got this from a friend who isn't posting, but does have a sort of programme for this kind of thing. Is the one with the red dress also Kate? I thought it was passed as being Maddie, for me she looks too old in it, five or six.

That photograph of Gerry with the red hair is quite a shocker, I've seen another one, same colour hair but about eight or nine. He must have been dying his hair since when? Very interesting, a way of distancing yourself from your roots? His nearest and dearest are a bit , well a bit. He phoned Mrs. Healey first on the 3rd of May, before phoning his own family. Well, red hair doesn't go brown, I would think it's been dyed since he was a student.

by Guest 10.10.11 17:33

tigger wrote:
Marian wrote:Here's a much clearer version of the young Kate photo.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thanks Imnotmerylstreep and Marian! Very useful, because it's the same ears! Must have a look at Kate's photos to see if they were eventually pinned back. Looks like Maddie inherited Kate's ears. According to the American expert who aged Maddie's photo, she had Gerry's nose. Now, in most photographs her nose is photoshopped, even when nothing else is. I got this from a friend who isn't posting, but does have a sort of programme for this kind of thing. Is the one with the red dress also Kate? I thought it was passed as being Maddie, for me she looks too old in it, five or six.

That photograph of Gerry with the red hair is quite a shocker, I've seen another one, same colour hair but about eight or nine. He must have been dying his hair since when? Very interesting, a way of distancing yourself from your roots? His nearest and dearest are a bit , well a bit. He phoned Mrs. Healey first on the 3rd of May, before phoning his own family. Well, red hair doesn't go brown, I would think it's been dyed since he was a student.

In September 2011, Cryos International, one of the world's largest sperm banks, announced that it would no longer accept donations from red-haired men due to low demand from women seeking artificial insemination.[70] big grin

All about redheads here [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

But I do know a redhead can go brown. My sister was dark read as a youngster and are today darkbrown...
I also was and still is a readhead :)

by Guest 14.10.11 10:51

I have looked trough the forum to find the post with the picture of Madeleine on a new bike, smiling. And the debate was about the bike looking to small for her, presuming it maybe was Amelies or someone elses bike she borrowed. I remember tigger saying her smile looked a little downs .. I just cant fint the topic and post, and after looking trough narly 100 pages I give up flag

Anyway, I did find this article and her aunt saying this :

Phil, 43, from Ullapool, revealed she was “elated” that police believe Maddie is still alive. She said: "She's a normal wee lassie, full of life. She's fascinated by pink like most wee girls. She's a real Barbie girl. She's got a wee pink bike with pink ribbons. We were due to go and visit them this week until this happened. I bought her a Scooby Doo scooter for her birthday.”

The description here, pink with pink ribbons is exactly what we see on the picture im refering to. So it was madeleines bike then.

Some more interresting things in the article.

Notice the publishing date :

You are hereNews>Local

Lovely Maddy spent Easter in Donegal

Published on Monday 7 May 2007 16:07 ( 4 days after her go missing)

and then the article says this :
Sources close to the investigation have admitted that they were slow to react, giving the abductor 48 hours to escape. It has been claimed that the Portuguese border control was not notified until last Friday morning - fifteen hours after little Madeleine, Maddie, who turned four last Saturday, was abducted.

Wasnt madeleins birthday the 12 May ? And this article was published the 7 May ?

Read article here

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Guest 14.10.11 11:21

Moa: here's a link to the bike photo.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I would say that the reference to Madeleine's birthday is an error and should read "turns four next Saturday". This would agree with Auntie Phil's statement that she had already got her (in advance) a present.

I find the headline referring to "Lovely Maddy" grating. Of course we know that she was never called Maddy or Maddie (!) but seriously what relevance is it that she is lovely?

by Guest 14.10.11 11:30

Marian wrote:Moa: here's a link to the bike photo.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I would say that the reference to Madeleine's birthday is an error and should read "turns four next Saturday". This would agree with Auntie Phil's statement that she had already got her (in advance) a present.

I find the headline referring to "Lovely Maddy" grating. Of course we know that she was never called Maddy or Maddie (!) but seriously what relevance is it that she is lovely?

Ty for the pic link :)

I agree, I mean most or all children in that age are lovely arn't they. It's not a personal description more a general one.
I think its weired after all the publicity about Madeleine, all the interviews and statements, I for one still donæt have a clue about how Madeleine was as a person. Thing she liked , typical thing she said or done. All descrition of her is so general and could fit all children. Mine are also, lovely, happy, beautiful , like the color pink and so on.. But they also have their own personalitys and I could easily describe them as persons that would not go for all children. Thats lacking in this case.
Who and how was Madeleine ? Not even the book clearifys that.
And all the publicity is just a Gerry and Kate show. I think I know more about their likings then Madeleines.

by Guest 14.10.11 11:56

I certainly agree with that Moa. I said somewhere else that, despite Madeleine being probably the most famous child in the 21st century, we know so little about her. We can't even say with certainty what she looked like due to the bewildering collection of photographs bearing little resemblance to each other.

by juliet 15.10.11 16:16

That picture of Madeleine, apparently in a pool, is by Paul Grover, I think.

He's the photographer who also took the skirting board photo.

I have sometimes wondered why the family would take Madeleine to a swimming pool with make-up on...would that be acceptable?

Or did Grover take the photo in the McCann bathroom? In which case, isn't that even less acceptable?

by Guest 17.10.11 8:56

Possibly the McCanns have a private swimming pool, Juliet? They do in any case have a very strange idea of what is acceptable when it comes to photos of children.

by russiandoll 17.10.11 11:17

I recall a photo of me when in the bath as a child...a spontaneous one taken when I was messing around with a sponge and soaking my head....the thing about some of Maddies photos are the marked difference between the lovely natural ones taken when she is caught in a moment of play or reflection, and the ones that are clearly posed and staged, and the look of these as almost like a glamour pose but with a child posing that way. Its the angle they are taken at that give them this inappropriate and disturbing effect; she is at times looking up at the camera in a context that does not appear innocent, and there is the notorious one where she is made up with her head tilted backwards but looking down. She is clearly not being natural and is following an instruction, so the adults have an objective in mind. I would not go as far as to say most of these make her look seductive, looking at them closely again, I think coquettish, flirtatious is more the word I would use. But this is still highly "off" and the fact they are shot by a professional implies the parents are striving for an effect and a profesional "finish" to these photos; you cant help but wonder what was the motive, as every action has a motive; also what were the discussions taking place between the parents, then the parents and the photographer, prior to these photo-shoots taking place. It's the "knowing" look she has in some of these photos that bothers me the most, she just looks too damned "knowing" for a child of 3, and for some reason I have since seeing it a long time ago always been disturbed by her face in that snow white video clip where she looks up at the camera and looks so sad before looking away. Its as if she gives a big sigh after looking at the camera. Really bothers me that one.

by kikoraton 17.10.11 14:51

Couldn't have put it as well as you, russiandoll. If I'd tried, urcrazytoo would have accused me of being a D.O.M. and seeing what I wanted to see.

by Guest 17.10.11 16:50

Well said Russian Doll and Kikoraton. To think that our gutter press (I think that sewer press is a better description) described the blue eye shadow photo as if it was just a normal family photo is unbelievable. Even on the Missing Madeleine site not long ago a poster who described the photos as provocative was told that there was nothing wrong with them and that his remark suggested that he might be a paedophile.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by russiandoll 18.10.11 12:17

I once read stuff on Justice for McCann fam forum and they are full of hatred. The stuff about G Amaral and the personal remarks about him were offensive in the extreme , I cannot repeat them here, vile stuff aimed at a man who has never displayed any vilification of the parents but who is abused for wanting to focus his attention on the victim of the crime... a child, and to discover the true nature of the crime committed. They also despise anyone questioning in a logical and reasonable way what has been put out there by the family.

While Maddie might well have said these words "Will you film me/take a photo of me in my snow white dress, Mummy/Daddy?" I find the following scenario improbable to say the least :

"my Mummy/Daddy say[s] you are a really good photographer. Will you come and take some photos of me ? I like putting on make up and lying down looking up like this lady I saw in a magazine , no not in one of my story books, a grown ups magazine [lies down to demonstrate the pose, lying on the floor, leans back on elbows, looks backwards and up at an imaginary camera], reminiscent of a Marilyn Monroe photo]. Shall I do a litttle smile, a cheeky smile ? And I like doing this as well , I have to be higher than you silly...no no not like that, you be like this, you're silly [ Maddie laughs].......[tells man to kneel down or stay put while she climbs on something to get the angle correct]. Now I want some of Mummys old blue eye shadow on and then I want to look like this, with my head like this[ leans head back tilts chin slightly], no I dont want to smile in this one, I want to do this face [puts on a sad miserable look]. Can you take a photo of me like this?
and after the photo shoot.

" I've had the best day ever !" what do you mean I speak too grown up for my age? I've just been playing grown up havent I?" [gets a telling off for being cheeky and precocious]
" I'm not being cheeky. I'm being a little firecracker."

by kikoraton 18.10.11 13:23

Satire. As you say, improbable. But wasn't Jon Corner suggesting something of the sort?
As I've said before, I think the McCanns are a seriously sick couple who either before or after Madeleine died have taken a delight in winding people up with images of her in completely inappropriate poses.

by russiandoll 18.10.11 18:16

you are too kind calling what I wrote satirical ! I was being meanly sarcastic, but what I see and hear makes my blood boil, for the child herself and for the insult to our intelligence. My point was of course that the posed photos were an adult[s] idea, arranged and taken by adults with a purpose. I wonder what was said by the involved parties prior to these activities and I woinder how little Maddie was persuaded to pose hte way she did.
In my kinder moments, earlier days before I read as much as I have, I attributed a more benign motive than I do currently. I always found photos of Maddie puzzling, she either looked extremely lovely or very unlovely......no half measures, and I thought it maybe had to do with a medical problem when she looked fatigued and pale and her face looked lop-sided. And I jokd to myself that somewhere in her genes was the no oil painting that is her uncle John!
Are they trying to beautify her on these days I asked myself, is that the reason for the expertly applied lip and eye make up?
Then I realised these photos without make up would have showed her face as pretty anyway.
There are photos of her, the tennis court one and an earlier one as a baby near a bed of tulips, plus a couple more, where her face has this odd look to it. I disliked myself for thinking sinister things about the make up photos, and I have always started from giving the parents the benefit of the doubt but...whatever way I look at the photos I am very uneasy.
Why would they wind the public up with the photos....to goad the suspicious ones and play mind games?
Someone has suggested they are sending a message.. crypic that and I am trying to work that out.
I am reading the creche and phone records section, really intersesting and I believe you have done a lot of work there.
It is very disturbing indeed to think there was a sub Madeleine, really gets rid of the panicked cover up and implies something premeditated and very sinister.

by juliet 18.10.11 20:00

Someone else has mentioned that they don't like the creepy way Gerry McCann talks to Madeleine when filming her (eg, in the pink fairy outfit or on the sofa).

That horrible video where she looks afraid of whoever is filming - did that once have a voice-over?

It has always seemed odd to film a three-year-old when she is simply standing there looking nervous and moving her lips in and out. Parents usually film a happy child laughing, dancing etc.

Over and over again the McCanns come across as seriously weird.

by Guest 19.10.11 13:06

I've been looking at videos on YouTube to see if I can find the one that Juliet refers to with a voiceover but I've had to give up as there's only so much sugar that anyone can take! Here's an example from this year. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As regards the one where Madeleine is dressed as a fairy, I'd never heard the voiceover until someone pointed it out recently and that cast an unsavoury air over it. I would be very interested to know if there should be a voiceover with the Snow White one.

by juliet 21.10.11 20:51

Hello, Jean,

Gerry McCann sounds seriously creepy when he is talking to Madeleine when she wears some sort of pink fairy outfit in the living room. He also bosses her about to "say yes daddy" or something when she is on a sofa looking very small. The film of her with the twins in the hallway with the pink sandals is a bit peculiar - what sort of family films its children in a bare wooden-floored hall, with all the kids pressed against the stairgate?

by Tinkerbell81 22.10.11 13:38

It has annoying music over it but this video has all the little bits in one with the original sound added and you can still hear it. I will try to find a version without music if its needed (note that apparently the Snow White audio wasnt released as it isnt included?)

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

EDIT: The first fragment shown, they have to tell her to smile, then she gets serious immediately? And all the rest...creepy. Very creepy

by kikoraton 22.10.11 14:18

This video may have been home-made. But here's a serious question: do enterprises which make child-porn videos have an innocent way of presenting themselves to the world outside? Can they masquerade as, for example, makers of films which project the desired image of a particular well-known brand? In fact, could they be such film-makers who have an unpleasant side-line, known only to a few?
If so, I have two in mind, at opposite ends of the country (England), both with links to the McCanns.

by Guest 22.10.11 18:35

Kikoraton, it's hard to see how anyone can answer that question without incriminating themselves - unless someone is of the disposition to seek out child porn movies, how would they know how the people who make them present themselves to the world?!

I would hazard a guess that it's all top secret with information being passed round in one way or another (encoded (is that the word?) websites etc) to those of that particular disposition.

by kikoraton 22.10.11 19:58

Without any such disposition, someone somewhere (ex-police, vice squad, social services etc) must have had to make such a study. I've discovered one enterprise, and possibly another, which appear to be respectable, but if you follow their directors thru Companies House or similar, you find that they have numerous off-shoots. Some of those might be far from respectable. Some of them might be run by people who say of a three-year-old girl things such as
""So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd. So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some ******* picked up on that."
(Know who I mean?)

by **tigger** 22.10.11 20:02

kikoraton wrote:Without any such disposition, someone somewhere (ex-police, vice squad, social services etc) must have had to make such a study. I've discovered one enterprise, and possibly another, which appear to be respectable, but if you follow their directors thru Companies House or similar, you find that they have numerous off-shoots. Some of those might be far from respectable. Some of them might be run by people who say of a three-year-old girl things such as
""So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd. So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some ******* picked up on that."
(Know who I mean?)

Indeed I do and as cops say in the movies: I like him.

by kikoraton 22.10.11 20:46

Was Corner the only ******* to have picked up on that? Or others amongst the OC ensemble?
To anyone without such strange ideas of what is appropriate, Maddie would have been just any 3-year-old.

by Guest 22.10.11 23:35

Kikoraton, I remember reading a quote recently from David Payne (no surprise there) in which he described Madeline in more glowing terms than might be expected. I can't find it now so I'm hoping that the person who posted it will be able to assist. There's a strange quote on the Find Madeleine website - "she is a warm, life-enriching little person and will never fail we're sure to bring joy into the life of anyone she may encounter". Then there's the quote from Kate's novel (no, not that one on page 129!) about her feelings on Madeleine's 4th birthday - "not being with her today, loving her, pleasing her, enjoying her delight, was unbearable".

I cannot imagine as a mother myself ever using such language in relation to a child.

by Gillyspot 22.10.11 23:48

David Payne in his rogatory statement talking about Madeleine.

""Mmm..., errr... Madeleine's, errr... a very striking, errr... beautiful child, I'd almost - if I want a better phrase - call her doll-like, you know. She was very, you know, I think, you know, very unique looking child, errr... she'd got very pretty, you know, blonde hair, errr... in a bob, she was quite a petite, errr... child and, you know, she was very bubbly, very, errr... you know, she was a very good child to, to interact with. She was very bright, you could have a lot of fun with Madeleine, errr... and, you know, she, she was, you know, Kate and Gerry's, you know, pride and joy. They'd had a lot of trouble conceiving, you know, with IVF and everything and, you know, Madeleine was their miracle. She was obviously very unique with the fact that she'd got the, you know, the iris defect, errr... but, you know, she was certainly a happy go lucky child, you know, she was, she would interact with the other children very well, as I said on the other, earlier recording, you know, she played very happily with Lily and, you know, indeed the other children. She was, you know, very... she is a very beautiful child and good fun.""

Just highlighted a couple of phrases but could have highlighted it all to be honest err.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]