Photographs and memories

tigger wrote:

jd wrote:

Moa wrote: Im 99 % sure the blue behind her is from a mans tshirt, as I once saw the whole picture where you can easily se that it is someone behind her. Could it be possible that that person are tilting her head back by grabing her by the hair or neck from behind? The pose is just so un natural, but if someone is sitting behind her tiliting it backwards the pose would look like that I think..

I think you are right, it is a mans blue tshirt behind her

It's often good to be proved wrong as I am now. I'd completely forgotten that I saw a lengthy thread on this somewhere over a year ago. There was indeed a suggestion of a t-shirt and therefore of an adult behind her, possibly pulling her head back. Even so, the photographer needed to be almost lying down to get this angle, otherwise you'd not see the neck like this from above.
Actually, that just makes it worse, two adults participating. It must have cropped mostly below, judging by the distortion of the forehead. Close quarters 28 mm? something like that.

I'd love to see the original full picture of this. maybe whoever it was behind her was just sitting there but without the benefit of the full shot it is hard to judge. If someone is pulling her head back then this is really very suspect as well as very worrying

"Thinking out of the box"..... and after reading other posts on other topics, I wonder if Maddie was dying over a period over there and possibly in an effort in trying to retrieve her she then got the bruise on her neck. Just a thought. To me but without seeing the original, the blue eye makeup does not look real to me. It looks like its been photoshopped on for some reason, I can't explain it in words but it looks to be computer generated and I have an eye for all things computers/photoshop etc. I wonder that because they had to cover the bruise in photoshop they had to give her eye makeup too otherwise it would look odd having just face blusher or something on that they covered. I do also wonder if this photo is the real last photo of Maddie?

I'll try to get the countryside shots uploaded Nina. Maybe HiDeHo has some of them already if he has used them in his videos?

Sorry Nina I've now realised which image you were talking about, the countryside one.

I've never heard anything before about there possibly being someone else in the infamous eye shadow photo. I'm sure it wasn't on Pamalam's site - I practically lived there!

By the way JD, HideHo is definitely female!

Marian wrote:Sorry Nina I've now realised which image you were talking about, the countryside one.

I've never heard anything before about there possibly being someone else in the infamous eye shadow photo. I'm sure it wasn't on Pamalam's site - I practically lived there!

By the way JD, HideHo is definitely female!

Oooophs! sorry HiDeHo....

I have never heard of someone else being in the photo but on reflection it does look that it could be a tshirt now

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

Letter to Clarence Mitchell regarding ‘made up’ Maddie images

02
MAY
Website: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]



Mr Clarence Mitchell Sunday 2 May 2010

Consultant, Crisis and Media Management

Freud Communications

55 Newman Street

LONDON W1T 3EB



Dear Mr Mitchell

re: New video produced by Jon Corner using images of Madeleine McCann with eye shadow and jewellery – now on YouTube



We write to express our concern about the images of Madeleine used by you, the McCanns and Jon Corner in the video message which was widely trailed in today’s newspapers and has already attracted several hundred views on YouTube. We understand that you as the McCanns’ chief public relations adviser must have approved the production and distribution of this video. Indeed, you are quoted in one of today’s newspapers as follows:

“McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: ‘The video is designed to remind people that the search for Madeleine is ongoing. Just because she’s not in the headlines every day doesn’t mean nothing is being done. Kate and Gerry are still devoting a large part of their daily lives to the search’.

The fact that your clients the McCanns explicitly approved the distribution of this video is clear from the following report of SKY News:

“Parents of Madeleine McCann, who went missing three years ago, have released a new video and photo of their missing daughter to mark the third anniversary of the girl’s disappearance”.

The concern we have and that is being expressed by thousands of others is the use of clearly-posed photographs of a three-year-old wearing make-up, such as eye shadow, a necklace and lipstick.

You and your clients the McCanns have from the day Madeleine was reported missing claimed explicitly and on many occasions that Madeleine must have been abducted by a paedophile, or paedophiles, often described by you and your clients as ‘predatory’, ‘evil’, or ‘a monster’. Yet the images of Madeleine that you have allowed to be used in your campaign are of a child looking much older than her actual years – the very kinds of images that often appeal to paedophiles. Even former police detective, now leading criminologist and child protection expert Mark Williams-Thomas, who has often spoken with strong sympathy and understanding for your clients, has today commented adversely on the McCann Team’s use of these images of Madeleine on ‘Twitter’. He said, in five separate messages earlier today:

1) “On the eve of Madeleine’s disappearance I agree with the release of a new photo but question the appropriateness of the photo chosen”

2) “Have not yet seen the new Madeleine video but the photograph is so inappropriate & damaging on so many levels – ill advised again”

3) “Am trying to find out now who gave advise [sic] to use the make up photo – so damaging – as I know what it will become”

4) Jon Corner may b able 2 answer ur question on who advised the McCanns to release THAT picture. He’s friends with Esther McVey”

5) “No response yet re who advised of the use of recent photo of Madeleine – as soon as I get a response will let u know”.

There has also been questioning of the following statement in one of today’s newspapers:

“Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance. The photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing-up box – she has a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace and is wearing blue eyeshadow”.

The statement that the photograph shows her ‘after a raid on the dressing-up box’ implies that Madeleine made herself up but is open to serious question for at least the following reasons:



a) it is doubtful if Madeleine could have put on the necklace herself without adult help

b) similarly, the eyeshadow looks neatly put on in certain places around the eye, whereas a three-year-old attempting to put on eyeshadow would have probably made a mess of it

c) Madeleine appears to have no eyelashes. Photographic experts who have analysed the picture suggest that colour has been digitally added on, hiding they eyelashes

d) Madeleine’s eyebrows look quite different from other photos, possibly covered with some form of make-up

e) There appear to be two obvious brush tool traces above the eye on the right of the photo.



Thus, whatever the truth about the circumstances under which this picture was taken, there are very good grounds for believing that an adult has applied the make-up and also of course been there to take the photograph. Taken together with two of the other images of Madeleine shown in the film, it is perhaps not surprising that, for example, on sites like ‘Twitter’, ‘Facebook’ and other forums, comments like the following have been made:



“The picture of Madeleine reminds me of JonBenét Ramsey’s beauty pageant photos, that kind of images could entice sexual predators”.



“If CEOP endorse this type of public relations for a supposed missing child, then their role in child protection has to be questioned!”



“The latest photo the McCanns have released makes for very uncomfortable viewing. Alongside the Gaspars’ statements, something is very wrong here”.



The context here includes the ever-increasing sexualisation of young children, highlighted recently when a high street store, Primark, had to withdraw the marketing of padded bikini tops to 7-year-olds, following a storm of protest from parents. The dressing up of young children to look adult has been condemned by most child welfare organisations and with good reason. For example, a recent Home Office commissioned report stated: “The evidence gathered in the review suggests a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm”.

The circumstances in which that photograph of Madeleine was taken may have been wholly innocent, but as many people have been saying today, its use by your clients the McCanns in their attempts to locate a missing child possibly abducted by paedophiles is surely inappropriate. We would therefore ask you and your clients to remove the video from circulation and from YouTube.

Your clients obviously still want the whole world to look for Madeleine and not forget about Madeleine. The problem is that we do not know where to look nor who to look for. For example, fourteen different artists’ impressions have been published in British newspapers of people whom the McCanns claim are either the suspected abductor or ‘persons of interest’. Twelve of these are men and two are women.

As for where to look, the advice given by the McCanns’ private investigators suggests that despite using the services of many of them for nearly three years, there is not a single piece of useful information that you can give to the public which would enable us to know where to begin to look. Despite millions of pounds being spent on Metodo 3, Control Risks Group, Red Defence, Oakley International, senior ex-Metropolitan Police detectives, senior ex-MI5 security staff and now the team of ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar and ex-Detective Sergeant Arthur Cowley, we have not a jot of information on where to look.

Mr Edgar told newspapers last year that he was ‘convinced’ (his word) that Madeleine was being held ‘in a prison lair within 10 miles of Praia da Luz in the lawless hills around’. Subsequently you and Mr Edgar told a press conference that a conversation at 2.00am (which had been kept secret for two-and-a-half years) between a British banker who had been drinking round the bars of Barcelona and a woman looking like Victoria Beckham and with an Australian accent was ‘a strong lead’ and as a result a nationwide alert was put out in Australia. Prior to that, in December 2007, Mr Francisco Marco, the boss of the first major detective agency used by your clients, Metodo 3, told the British media that he ‘knew Madeleine was alive’, that ‘his men are closing in on where she is being kept’ and that ‘Madeleine will be home by Christmas’.

It would surely be much more helpful to the public to give out the best description of the abductor that the McCanns’ various detective agencies have, between them, been able to compile, so we know who to look for, and to give the public as much information as you are able to about what really happened to her. You have often been quoted in the newspapers as saying: “Our investigations are confidential…we cannot disclose the information our investigators have” etc. But this gives the public no help at all in knowing where to look for Madeleine.

I trust you will pass these comments on to your clients. At the same time we are raising with Mr Jim Gamble, Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), and other organisations concerned with the welfare of children, whether they approve of appeals for a missing child being made using images of that child in a pose for the cameras and with a considerable degree of adult make-up.

Yours sincerely

Tony Bennett,

Secretary
HLM’s note -

Great letter, shame it didn’t mention the playful reclining and sucking of a lollipop pictures too. Bizarre trio of images ‘really…actually’…just what is the intended message and who is it intended for?
Still, persons who sway towards the children are highly unlikely to see anything wrong in the images chosen…just who did pick those photos?

Tony, did you ever get a reply? I guess you didn't!

jd wrote:

Marian wrote:Sorry Nina I've now realised which image you were talking about, the countryside one.

I've never heard anything before about there possibly being someone else in the infamous eye shadow photo. I'm sure it wasn't on Pamalam's site - I practically lived there!

By the way JD, HideHo is definitely female!

Oooophs! sorry HiDeHo.... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

No problem...though if I wasn't I'd have a bit of explaining to do with the stilettos and lippy![You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here is the shot of the landscape.

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

Now it could very easily be just an innocent addition but there is something that may make them need to 'acknowlege...hard to explain....but I often add little 'extra' pics to my videos in case they are of consequence[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Perhaps it's to illustrate a lawless hill to let everyone know where to look!

HiDeHo wrote:

jd wrote:

Marian wrote:Sorry Nina I've now realised which image you were talking about, the countryside one.

I've never heard anything before about there possibly being someone else in the infamous eye shadow photo. I'm sure it wasn't on Pamalam's site - I practically lived there!

By the way JD, HideHo is definitely female!

Oooophs! sorry HiDeHo.... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

No problem...though if I wasn't I'd have a bit of explaining to do with the stilettos and lippy![You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Here is the shot of the landscape.

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

Now it could very easily be just an innocent addition but there is something that may make them need to 'acknowlege...hard to explain....but I often add little 'extra' pics to my videos in case they are of consequence[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

HiDeHo many thanks. On first looking and straight away I think that on the top left is a quarry.

PeterMac wrote:

Nina : On first looking and straight away I think that on the top left is a quarry.

Come on now !
Play the game !
It is clearly a "hellish lair".
If you don't say so, then Carter-Ruck will visit you in the small hours and put a bat up your nightdress.

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

With my binocs I can see a quarry in the distance and know that daily they blast and dig and there are big spoil heaps. Certainly a good place to hide anything.

I had not seen this one before, looks like Gerry is on some show taking questions from the audiens..Would like to see more questions and answers from this show..

This is taken from the 'Paul Grover - photographer to the stars' thread. (Thanks to Willo)

"Willo wrote:I also
emailed Mr Grover through his business website last night asking why,
where and for whom these photos were taken and were they photoshopped
and this morning had five replies from an iphone.

1/ To answer your questions I Sid not photograph Madeleine I copies the photos from her grandmothers album when she went missing


2/ Also
the the pics are not Lolita pics they are family pics taken by members
of the family if you think they are Lolita pics your problem

3/ And no they are not altered in phot shop

4/ I
kind of get fed up with people thinking that I take pics of young girls
there was nothing sinister they are not my pictures! So let that be the
end of it

5/ Hello Willo, Not sure what you are implying
but I did not have ever photographed Madeleine McCann I copied her
grandmothers phot album I am not sure why people (you are not the first)
think they are "Lolita" style pics I never thought that when I saw them
if you have a problem with the style of the photos have a word with the
family because THEY ARE NOT MINE!


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

So according to PaulGrover, (I have no reason to believe this is not him ^)the photographs were taken by family members and they were handed over to him by a family member - Eileen McCann.

This can't have bothered The Mccann's because they were then happy to use these shots in a video promo appeal. So, they didn't mind Granny Eileen handing over these photographs, but she was apparently deceived into handing over a "private photograph of the familly" and this bothered them so much they bleated about it at the Leveson Inquiry and Carter Ruck felt the need to include it in their blog!

"The couple explained to the Inquiry, however, that their victimisation
by the press went much further than this. They had repeatedly been ‘doorstepped’
and harassed by photographers who had caused considerable distress to
their younger daughter and son, while a journalist had also managed to
deceive Mr McCann’s mother into handing over a private photograph of the
family."

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

Forgot to mention, not to be confused with the other photographer named Paul Grover from Kent.

Daisy wrote:This is taken from the 'Paul Grover - photographer to the stars' thread. (Thanks to Willo)

"Willo wrote:I also
emailed Mr Grover through his business website last night asking why,
where and for whom these photos were taken and were they photoshopped
and this morning had five replies from an iphone.

1/ To answer your questions I Sid not photograph Madeleine I copies the photos from her grandmothers album when she went missing


2/ Also
the the pics are not Lolita pics they are family pics taken by members
of the family if you think they are Lolita pics your problem

3/ And no they are not altered in phot shop

4/ I
kind of get fed up with people thinking that I take pics of young girls
there was nothing sinister they are not my pictures! So let that be the
end of it

5/ Hello Willo, Not sure what you are implying
but I did not have ever photographed Madeleine McCann I copied her
grandmothers phot album I am not sure why people (you are not the first)
think they are "Lolita" style pics I never thought that when I saw them
if you have a problem with the style of the photos have a word with the
family because THEY ARE NOT MINE!


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

So according to PaulGrover, (I have no reason to believe this is not him ^)the photographs were taken by family members and they were handed over to him by a family member - Eileen McCann.

This can't have bothered The Mccann's because they were then happy to use these shots in a video promo appeal. So, they didn't mind Granny Eileen handing over these photographs, but she was apparently deceived into handing over a "private photograph of the familly" and this bothered them so much they bleated about it at the Leveson Inquiry and Carter Ruck felt the need to include it in their blog!

"The couple explained to the Inquiry, however, that their victimisation
by the press went much further than this. They had repeatedly been ‘doorstepped’
and harassed by photographers who had caused considerable distress to
their younger daughter and son, while a journalist had also managed to
deceive Mr McCann’s mother into handing over a private photograph of the
family."

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

Good grief! I must be psychic. Didnt I say earlier that "that" photo was taken in grandma's backyard? And now this......?

Doesn't matter the source of the photo, it is still an appalling release without regards to the sensitive issue at hand, considering they bleat on about the abduction by paedophile. Also that is not a flattering pic of Maddie - in fact it's horrid!

Eta: I wonder which private family photo poor gullible grandma Eileen was deceived into handing over that she thought was for promoting the fund
...Oops better change it to promoting the search in case CR is watching.

But there isn't just one sickening photo, there are 3 of them so I don't buy the grandma was deceived story. Its another reactive statement to defend themselves like they always do

of course the grandma wasnt deceived. She would do anything to help the Fund because she knows Gerry needs it badly for fighting and paying lawyers.

jd wrote:But there isn't just one sickening photo, there are 3 of them so I don't buy the grandma was deceived story. Its another reactive statement to defend themselves like they always do

That's exactly what I'm getting at JD. What "private family photograph" can be more distasteful and damaging than those 3 shots? I agree, I think they're trying to distance themselves from the blame of releasing those photos by saying Eileen McCann was decieved. They are also muddying the waters again by not saying which photo in particular offended them so much that it had to be mentioned at the Leveson Inquiry. They surely can't be referring to any of these 3 photos because they happily used them in their video appeal.

Taken this over here from another thread (sorry for going offtopic on that one)

candyfloss wrote:Already asked and answered here tinkerbell,

Moa wrote:

tumbleweed wrote:Sorry
for going off topic, but have to ask. Moa is that Madeleine in your
icon picture? I've never seen that one! Can you tell me where you got
it? I've been trying to gather all of the pictures of her for facial
comparison, etc.

yes it is her, you can find it on gerrymccannsblog / pamalam site I think..http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELEINE_PHOTOS.htm

Look at her teeth, Maddie has small gaps and a slightly larger on her right side, this girl has a gap in front and no other gaps, so IMO she cant be Maddie!

Tinkerbell, this is also on the "Could something have hapened to Madeleine earlier in the week?" topic. I have doubts that this photo is of Madeleine too.

Tinkerbell81 wrote:Taken this over here from another thread (sorry for going offtopic on that one)

candyfloss wrote:Already asked and answered here tinkerbell,

Moa wrote:

tumbleweed wrote:Sorry
for going off topic, but have to ask. Moa is that Madeleine in your
icon picture? I've never seen that one! Can you tell me where you got
it? I've been trying to gather all of the pictures of her for facial
comparison, etc.

yes it is her, you can find it on gerrymccannsblog / pamalam site I think..http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELEINE_PHOTOS.htm

Look at her teeth, Maddie has small gaps and a slightly larger on her right side, this girl has a gap in front and no other gaps, so IMO she cant be Maddie!

Yes ! I noticed that too !! Her teeth are very different ,perfect on this picture and very different from the book picture. And she was too Young to have started to lose her first teeths.. But according to the parents the kids shared one tooth brush so who knows how good the teeths were..

This picture could be of a very young Kate. There is another one somewhere of her with a black hat on. I'll see if I can find it.

Actually I must be the only odd one out.
I don't believe any of the officially released photos was photoshopped.
Too risky and stupid if they did that, and no reason to do that, since there is no relevance to the investigation.

The only Photo I question is the last photo of Maddie by the Pool.
Personally I don't think that is doctored either, but not taken on the 3rd, may have been taken on day of arrival, judging from the clothing.
That had to be produced, and claimed to be taken on the 3rd to influence investigation.

The only reason to lie is to influence the investigation .
Since the rest of the later released photos would do nothing to influence the investigation why photoshop?
They didn't even have to release it if they didn't want to - simple as. Why released photoshopped photos and complicate matters when the release is not mandatory.

It does not make logical sense. hence my belief none of them was photoshopped. Bad taste release - yes, most definitely.

.

Well, Alyoyo, I have to disagree, the Everton photo: that is so badly done that it is very easy to see when you blow it up. There's a pixel blur on the elbow and next to the face, a ghostline along the arm and the very obvious position of the head which cannot possibly rest on the neck like that. The same mistake is visible in the Donegal rock photo. It's actually quite tricky to do - a lot of students when drawing the nude, position the head or neck wrongly. If you blow the Everton photo up, the head seems almost to float.
Then there is the glaring mistake in the ice cream photo where the left arm holding the ice cream is at an impossible angle to the elbow and in fact clearly cut off.

There are quite a lot more and in many innocent looking photos she is wearing make up. We women can tell you know. Mostly mascara I think. Eyelashes and eyebrows tend to have the same colour, a toddler with blondish hair and pale eyebrows is highly unlikely to have such very black eyelashes.

I do understand Aiyoyo when you ask why the McCanns would issue suspect photos, particularly ones that have no relevance to the holiday - but then there's very little rhyme or reason to anything that they do.

I know, they release pictures of her younger at the time when she is older

Jean wrote:I do understand Aiyoyo when you ask why the McCanns would issue suspect photos, particularly ones that have no relevance to the holiday - but then there's very little rhyme or reason to anything that they do.

They are arrogant. That's all. It is the way it is because they say so.