Re: Who is this girl?

by Daisy 12.08.11 19:45

I know exactly what you mean tigger. 'Madeleine' has many different looks. I don't believe the photos are all of the same girl either. And yes, 'Madeleine' has been clearly sexualised in some of the pics; the lollipop one doesn't appear like any three year old that I've ever known.

I've taken hundreds of photos of my children/grandchildren, more so the grandchildren. I've captured their whole childhoods thus far, and of course they change, but I can still recognise them, I can still see the same child, not so with the Madeleine pics.

by Miraflores 12.08.11 21:16

[quote="tigger"]

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

The one on the right is supposed to be Madeleine, but is one of those I really doubt. The coloboma is duly shopped in though. But I still don't think that's Maddie.

Personally I do think that the one on the right is Madeleine - you can see the resemblance to Kate clearly - but as she is as a nearly 4 year old rather than the just 3 year old picture which we normally see. I also think that she does have a fleck/coloboma/whatever in her eye, and those photos you see without it are the ones which have been photoshopped. Why the McCanns did this, is something of a mystery to me, if they really wanted their daughter to be found. Of course, such old photos are now irrelevant.

by jd 12.08.11 21:23

Im confused with this topic. The child on the left is clearly not Maddie and someone has said that little girl on the left is Madeline O'Brien, a child actress, she played Amanda MCready in Gone Baby Gone.

Was the picture on the left published by the Mccanns at some point as a pic of Maddie?

by Guest 12.08.11 21:40

Daisy wrote:I know exactly what you mean tigger. 'Madeleine' has many different looks. I don't believe the photos are all of the same girl either. And yes, 'Madeleine' has been clearly sexualised in some of the pics; the lollipop one doesn't appear like any three year old that I've ever known.

I've taken hundreds of photos of my children/grandchildren, more so the grandchildren. I've captured their whole childhoods thus far, and of course they change, but I can still recognise them, I can still see the same child, not so with the Madeleine pics.

I agree with you, Daisy. Of them all that's the one that deeply disturbs me.

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

by Daisy 12.08.11 23:27

Molly wrote:
Daisy wrote:I know exactly what you mean tigger. 'Madeleine' has many different looks. I don't believe the photos are all of the same girl either. And yes, 'Madeleine' has been clearly sexualised in some of the pics; the lollipop one doesn't appear like any three year old that I've ever known.

I've taken hundreds of photos of my children/grandchildren, more so the grandchildren. I've captured their whole childhoods thus far, and of course they change, but I can still recognise them, I can still see the same child, not so with the Madeleine pics.

I agree with you, Daisy. Of them all that's the one that deeply disturbs me.

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

Exactly Molly, anybody tuned into symbolism will see how very wrong this picture is. It's coming to something when the most subtle part is the eye liner & lipstick.

And why would she have a lollipop and giant cornetto at the same time?

by ROSA 12.08.11 23:38

A sexy 3 yr old?

by **tigger** 13.08.11 9:05

[quote="Miraflores"]

tigger wrote:
ufercoffy wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The one on the right is supposed to be Madeleine, but is one of those I really doubt. The coloboma is duly shopped in though. But I still don't think that's Maddie.

Personally I do think that the one on the right is Madeleine - you can see the resemblance to Kate clearly - but as she is as a nearly 4 year old rather than the just 3 year old picture which we normally see. I also think that she does have a fleck/coloboma/whatever in her eye, and those photos you see without it are the ones which have been photoshopped. Why the McCanns did this, is something of a mystery to me, if they really wanted their daughter to be found. Of course, such old photos are now irrelevant.

A few months ago, in an interview with Piers Morgan, Gerry M. stated clearly that the coloboma didn't exist, just a fleck which you could only see when you are very close. I'm afraid you've got it wrong, all the ones with the coloboma are photoshopped.
I have my doubts about this picture because the right half of her face is much fatter than the left. Her right eye looks swollen and lower than the left eye. In fact, the little girl looks ill. the expression on her face worries me too. She looks sad and the smile is rather sad too.

by Miraflores 13.08.11 9:41

A few months ago, in an interview with Piers Morgan, Gerry M. stated clearly that the coloboma didn't exist, just a fleck which you could only see when you are very close. I'm afraid you've got it wrong, all the ones with the coloboma are photoshopped.
I
have my doubts about this picture because the right half of her face is
much fatter than the left. Her right eye looks swollen and lower than
the left eye. In fact, the little girl looks ill. the expression on her
face worries me too. She looks sad and the smile is rather sad too.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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

We are going to have to agree to disagree here tigger. It's only recently that the McCanns have started denying the coloboma. As for faces being asymmetrical - well mine is too, and one of my eyes is lower than the other. That's quite normal, I think.

Perhaps Piers Morgan was primed to ask this question, so that the denial of the coloboma could be worked in? And we are all so stupid of course that we will immediately forget all those 'look' posters. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 13.08.11 10:03

I was about to say that this image of Madeleine (the one on the right of course) is one of the most natural ones I've seen, far removed from those in make-up and posing provocatively. However, the coloboma which she didn't have is clearly showing (you need to enlarge the image) so it's not as nature intended after all!

by Miraflores 13.08.11 10:46

However, the
coloboma which she didn't have is clearly showing (you need to enlarge
the image) so it's not as nature intended after all![You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That's the problem - the waters have been so muddied that we don't know whether Madeleine had a coloboma or not.

by juliet 13.08.11 12:13

In that weird photo of the child with icecream, the hand is not linked to the arm. The angle is all wrong

And that arm looks like a woman's, not a child's.

There are so many photos which are quite sinister. Don't the McCanns see that?

by **tigger** 13.08.11 12:23

Miraflores wrote:
However, the
coloboma which she didn't have is clearly showing (you need to enlarge
the image) so it's not as nature intended after all![You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

That's the problem - the waters have been so muddied that we don't know whether Madeleine had a coloboma or not.

She didn't, I knew that long before that interview and so did quite a few others. The little film where she's biting her lip, if you enlarge it, no coloboma, but in the still photograph on their own site you can't miss it. It's much more difficult to photoshop a digital film.
Not only that, the coloboma moves around, sometimes at 6 o'clock, then again at 7. All impossible. The coloboma had a function: they wouldn't need to see children themselves for them to be eliminated from any enquiry.
Now, I think they're playing it down because they need lots of sightings to keep the public interested. See the Leh sighting in India.
How would the fund keep going otherwise?

by **tigger** 13.08.11 12:31

juliet wrote:In that weird photo of the child with icecream, the hand is not linked to the arm. The angle is all wrong

And that arm looks like a woman's, not a child's.

There are so many photos which are quite sinister. Don't the McCanns see that?

Yes, I think that's not a child's arm, photoshopped again to get the cornet in and enhance the pose. Tell tale fat on upper arm, impossible in a child of 3/4.

I've always been amazed at how they don't see it.
Kate has seen fit to publish the blue eyeshadow picture even in the byewk! first she said it was 'after Madeleine had raided her make up box'. Well, that didn't go down so well with other mothers of 3 yr. olds. No way would a child get make up on like that.
In the book it's changed to: 'a professional beautician who was visiting did it'.

I'm just wondering if some of this protection they've got comes from publishing photographs which are familiar to some people. A message to say what?
Maddie is wearing make-up in so many photographs - it really is creepy.

If SY is worth their salt, they'll have an expert on this sort of thing.

by Guest 13.08.11 12:36

Hi tigger,

[quote tigger]
In the book it's changed to: 'a professional beautician who was visiting did it'.

I hadn't heard this before, is it possible for you to put up the relevant bit from the book?

Why would a professional beautician visit, perhaps for the docu in the house?

by **tigger** 13.08.11 12:47

candyfloss wrote:Hi tigger,

[quote tigger]
In the book it's changed to: 'a professional beautician who was visiting did it'.

I hadn't heard this before, is it possible for you to put up the relevant bit from the book?

Why would a professional beautician visit, perhaps for the docu in the house?

I will try, don't have the book of course. But can only get it in reference library here. It'll be about Tuesday.

There was quite a reaction when that photo first got published and I expect she had some advice, hence in the change in the book. But why have that in the book at all? When she knows it is not liked by the public. And NO photographs from PdL (because too many people would be pointing out traces of photoshopping and too many would see that the pool girl and the tennis girl cannot be contemporary?).

by ufercoffy 13.08.11 13:31

jd wrote:Im confused with this topic. The child on the left is clearly not Maddie and someone has said that little girl on the left is Madeline O'Brien, a child actress, she played Amanda MCready in Gone Baby Gone.

Was the picture on the left published by the Mccanns at some point as a pic of Maddie?

No.

I found the pic when I googled Madeleine McCann. I actually started the thread because I wondered if she was the 'substitute' Madeleine that Kikoratton is often referring to. I thought she may have been the daughter of a tapas7 as she is Madeleine O'Brien.

But she is a child actress so my question has been answered.

by LG78 31.08.11 20:21

Daisy wrote:
Molly wrote:
Daisy wrote:I know exactly what you mean tigger. 'Madeleine' has many different looks. I don't believe the photos are all of the same girl either. And yes, 'Madeleine' has been clearly sexualised in some of the pics; the lollipop one doesn't appear like any three year old that I've ever known.

I've taken hundreds of photos of my children/grandchildren, more so the grandchildren. I've captured their whole childhoods thus far, and of course they change, but I can still recognise them, I can still see the same child, not so with the Madeleine pics.

I agree with you, Daisy. Of them all that's the one that deeply disturbs me.

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

Exactly Molly, anybody tuned into symbolism will see how very wrong this picture is. It's coming to something when the most subtle part is the eye liner & lipstick.

And why would she have a lollipop and giant cornetto at the same time?

Are u sure it is a lollipop and not the spoon she eats the icecream with?

by Smokeandmirrors 31.08.11 20:59

Can anyone get a side by side of the child actress Madeleine and Madeleine pushing her her to one side in Everton shirt? The hand positions look identical but could be just because they are doing the same hair thing. It would be good to see them together.

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

by Guest 31.08.11 21:12

This one?

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

by **tigger** 31.08.11 22:22

LG78 wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Are u sure it is a lollipop and not the spoon she eats the icecream with?[/quote]

And why would she be eating a cornetto with a spoon? I've never seen that done. Another photoshopped item, that arm is a lot older than the child. It's Maddie's face on top of whatever body.

by Guest 31.08.11 22:30

I'm a lot more worried about why the McCanns chose to issue such an inappropriate photo with its suggestive overtones than whether or not the ice cream was being eaten with a spoon. Then there's the fact that almost certainly the head and the body are not of the same person so once again all I can ask is why was it issued at all?

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

by Guest 31.08.11 22:42

Are we sure it was a McCann release? I thought so at first but I can't find any proof that it was. The picture is from the 2010 video release but in that there is no ice-cream.

by Smokeandmirrors 31.08.11 22:50

Thanks for putting those pics on Molly and Admin. Very similar demeanour of the fingers between both girls, for a moment when I saw the actress Madeleine I did a double take of the hand and thought it was almost the same!

by LG78 31.08.11 23:10

Where im from you always get a little spoon to icecreams like this. I dont think the arm are photshopped in. Looks perfectly normal to me? I also seen this picture without the icecream, so its more likely someone else photoshopped it to make more fuzz around the mccanns. I think you see what you see depending what your looking for. The quality of the picture, and the lighting in it is very poor and it looks old ... I also think it is very important to stay to facts that can be proven in this case. its so fast that someone claims a thing and then everyone believes it. Seen that a lot in here, then the facts are straighten up after pages discussing it. Like the claim that she wrote in her boook : Big brown eyes, when it acually said Big big eyes. ( wich anyway is also a strange way to describe a babys eyes, it do not sound right reading it) anyway it was a big differense in saying she wrote brown eyes when Maddies are blue, and then it turned out to be wrong ...
The quality of the picture, lighting in it is very poor and it looks old ..

by Guest 31.08.11 23:13

For anyone who missed this gem, here's a link:

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

The photo without the ice cream appears at around 1.04. To me it's the same photo, it's just that it's shortened to show only her face.

P.S. It appears on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which states that the material was on the original Find Madeleine site.