Re: Why have the McCanns lied about Maddie's coloboma for 4 years?

by pauline 24.08.11 20:59

with all the dodgy photos around we cannot be sure what colour anybody's eyes in this saga are.

but if we could definitively establish eye color and then that Madeleine and/or the twins could not be the children of both the Mccanns, it would definitely be relevant in establishing they had lied about something there is no need to lie about. Which has to throw doubt on other things they have said.

by IAmNotMerylStreep 24.08.11 21:06

Sean looks very much like Gerry.

by Miraflores 24.08.11 23:20

Apparently two blue eyed parents can produce a brown eyed child. http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/aprilholladay/2004-10-14-wonderquest_x.htm

Sean looks very much like Gerry, Madeleine looked like Kate;I haven't seen enough photos to see who Amelie looked like, but I imagine that they are all their children.

by Guest 24.08.11 23:39

thanks miraflores, I didn't know that! thumbsup

by littlepixie 24.08.11 23:59

Madeleine was the "living image" of Kate McCann. I wish Kate would stand up for her once and for all.

by lj 25.08.11 0:17

Could that have been the reason Madeleine had to disappear?

by littlepixie 25.08.11 0:19

It had crossed my mind, but still we are loyal to "our own".

by **tigger** 25.08.11 7:04

littlepixie wrote:It had crossed my mind, but still we are loyal to "our own".

Sorry, I don't understand that?

Also, in earlier debate someone said that blue eyed parents can't have a brown eyed child. It's definitely the other way round, blue being the recessive gene. If the brown gene is present but not expressed in the parents it's rare but not impossible for a child with blue eyed parents to have brown eyes.
I just thought that Sean and Amelie would not technically be twins if there was a different mix of donors for each of them.

by Miraflores 25.08.11 7:52

tigger wrote:

I just thought that Sean and Amelie would not technically be twins if there was a different mix of donors for each of them.

I imagine that because they were the product of the same pregnancy they are still twins - just non-identical. It is even possible to give birth to twins conceived naturally by different fathers, according to a piece in last week's weekend Guardian where someone said her twins were like this.

by rainbow-fairy 28.09.11 22:18

Just wondering out loud here - WHEN EXACTLY did the McC's begin to downplay the coloboma?
With the review now happening, I'm pretty sure SY (who are SUPPOSED to bed looking for missed leads) will want to check the family's medical records? Surely if Maddie did or didn't have a coloboma it would be recorded in there?
The McCanns know what these records contain - could this be yet another case of reactive 'making their words fit the evidence'?
'If I'm being honest, we've never made a big thing of her eye' - I should coco! And let's not forget what Dr Martin Roberts states 'if I'm being honest' means - ie don't believe a word I'm about to say!

by Guest 28.09.11 22:44

As far as I'm aware, the reversal over the coloboma issue came with the Piers Morgan intervew in May. Here's a transcript courtesy of Little Morsals.

http://littlemorsals.blogspot.com/2011/05/piers-morgan-interview-with-mccanns-may.html

I don't suppose I'm the only person who cannot abide to hear the McCanns' voices any more, hence my selecting a transcribed version.

by rainbow-fairy 28.09.11 23:04

Marian wrote:As far as I'm aware, the reversal over the coloboma issue came with the Piers Morgan interview in May. Here's a transcript courtesy of Little Morsals.

http://littlemorsals.blogspot.com/2011/05/piers-morgan-interview-with-mccanns-may.html

I don't suppose I'm the only person who cannot abide to hear the McCanns' voices any more, hence my selecting a transcribed version.

Hmmmmm - May? When the review was announced! So my theory DOES stand up so far then? You know, Marian, I don't believe for one minute K n G thought they'd get the review so it was a nasty shock, yet they have to 'appear' pleased, don't they?
Sr Amaral predicted earlier in the year that a review would be a 'shot in the foot' and much would be revealed that would displease them. Let's hope he's proven right!

Be assured, Marian, I can't bear to hear their self-pitying, whining, grating tones either - never have been able to. And as for Aunty Phil - aargh!

by **PeterMac** 29.09.11 9:20

rainbow-fairy wrote: You know, Marian, I don't believe for one minute K n G thought they'd get the review so it was a nasty shock, yet they have to 'appear' pleased, don't they? Sr Amaral predicted earlier in the year that a review would be a 'shot in the foot' and much would be revealed that would displease them. Let's hope he's proven right!

I think you are correct on that. Without the review they could go on collecting money for the "Fund", and their continued complaints that no one was doing anything would assist. Once Cameron had announced the Review they were stuffed.

There are many precedents for people complaining about things, but actually not wanting the outcome.

• For 2000 Jews prayed, "Next year in Jerusalem," when they were given Jerusalem they stayed on in New York.
• The Chinese complained about Hong Kong. When they were given it back they discovered it started to undermine their Communist regime, and will probably act like a cancer and spread Capitalism and Democracy throughout the region.
• The Spanish complain about Gibraltar - but not very much !
• Women complained about not having equality, and now the conditions for their pensions have been brought into line with men's, they don't like it.

And so on. I have a feeling that Cameron may have done some good.

by jmac 29.09.11 10:00

One of the things that made me suspicious about the McCanns was the fact that they were prepared to announce Madeleine`s eye defect to the world. Any normal parent would know instinctively that such a move would put Madeleine at risk - she could be too easily identified, and any abductor would know this. That G McCann put a marketing ploy before protecting Madeleine, to me, suggests there was something seriously lacking in him as a parent.

Now we learn that in photographs a little fleck in the eye was exaggerated! This would have to have been done a short time after Madeleine`s disappearance, I think. How is it possible for distraught parents to behave like that?

There are two mysteries that intrigue me about this case. One is the strange behaviour of the parents. The other is that the UK media do not seem to find the strange behaviour of the parents at all worrying. That the McCanns modify their account of things time and time again is never commented on either. Whether their changed account of the coloboma has anything to do with the review I am not sure. But the inconsistencies are mounting and will never go away.

by Guest 29.09.11 10:14

PeterMac wrote:I have a feeling that Cameron may have done some good.

I have a feeling he is playing a blinder and all good things come to those who wait and who deserve them.
Here's to you DC airkiss

and I don't mean the F1 one either.

by Guest 29.09.11 10:18

Why have the McCanns lied about Maddie's coloboma for 4 years? - Page 3 977352

and welcome aboard jmac.

Why have the McCanns lied about Maddie's coloboma for 4 years? - Page 3 145395

by Gillyspot 29.09.11 10:46

Jmac

Why did they spend their time before the Portuguese GNR arrived deleted most of their mobile telephone calls. I probably wouldn't have even rememebered where my phone was let alone deleted calls as would have been off my head with worry.

Why were they busy getting all their Team McCann back in the UK criticising the Portuguese Police right from the 4th May simply because the PJ thought she may have wandered off at that time and the McCanns' wanted them to focus on only the "abduction" thesis and NO other.

Why did they get so many friends and family (including David Payne and Kates Dad) to say that the shutters were forced when there was no evidence of this happening? Interesting that these statements are mostly still available in the press after so much has been "whooshed"

by **tigger** 29.09.11 11:31

jmac wrote: snip

Now we learn that in photographs a little fleck in the eye was exaggerated! This would have to have been done a short time after Madeleine`s disappearance, I think. How is it possible for distraught parents to behave like that?

snip.

In the GNR report or the PJ report (McCannfiles) one of the officers noted that there was a pile (30 to 40) of A4 quality photographs ready as well as a pile of posters which was run off on the MW printer that night. However, a mere four hours or so after her disappearance the iconic photograph, fully photoshopped, and complete with coloboma, was ready to go. The photo dates from Christmas 2005!
Unfortunately for TM, the PJ found out that there was no printer at MW which could print photo quality. The paper wasn't available anywhere in PdL. Subsequently, a girl who worked there, said they'd used her portable printer which took USB keys.
We still have a problem, it's pretty curious to go on holiday with a USB key (no laptops apparently) containing this photo of Maddie with the eye defect. That means the 'adjustment' was done in the UK.
The printer was never found, since the girls' boyfriend took it with him to Switserland and then it was lost.....
ROB is supposed to have done all this printing and his rogatory interview shows that his recall is far from total!

by rainbow-fairy 29.09.11 11:37

PeterMac wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote: You know, Marian, I don't believe for one minute K n G thought they'd get the review so it was a nasty shock, yet they have to 'appear' pleased, don't they? Sr Amaral predicted earlier in the year that a review would be a 'shot in the foot' and much would be revealed that would displease them. Let's hope he's proven right!
I think you are correct on that. Without the review they could go on collecting money for the "Fund", and their continued complaints that no one was doing anything would assist. Once Cameron had announced the Review they were stuffed.

There are many precedents for people complaining about things, but actually not wanting the outcome.

• For 2000 Jews prayed, "Next year in Jerusalem," when they were given Jerusalem they stayed on in New York.
• The Chinese complained about Hong Kong. When they were given it back they discovered it started to undermine their Communist regime, and will probably act like a cancer and spread Capitalism and Democracy throughout the region.
• The Spanish complain about Gibraltar - but not very much !
• Women complained about not having equality, and now the conditions for their pensions have been brought into line with men's, they don't like it.

And so on. I have a feeling that Cameron may have done some good.

Oh, let's hope so, PeterMac! I've never actually voted CON before, but ANY party who would put an end to this farce would get my vote. I think K n G SEVERELY p***ed DC off with their comment about his son Ivan, and how he would 'know how they feel'. I bet he saw red!
I just hope this is the beginning of the end for Team McCann and all who sail in her!

by rainbow-fairy 29.09.11 11:59

jmac wrote:One of the things that made me suspicious about the McCanns was the fact that they were prepared to announce Madeleine`s eye defect to the world. Any normal parent would know instinctively that such a move would put Madeleine at risk - she could be too easily identified, and any abductor would know this. That G McCann put a marketing ploy before protecting Madeleine, to me, suggests there was something seriously lacking in him as a parent.

Now we learn that in photographs a little fleck in the eye was exaggerated! This would have to have been done a short time after Madeleine`s disappearance, I think. How is it possible for distraught parents to behave like that?

There are two mysteries that intrigue me about this case. One is the strange behaviour of the parents. The other is that the UK media do not seem to find the strange behaviour of the parents at all worrying. That the McCanns modify their account of things time and time again is never commented on either. Whether their changed account of the coloboma has anything to do with the review I am not sure. But the inconsistencies are mounting and will never go away.

Hello and welcome, jmac!
I think the UK media DO realise the McCanns behaviour is worrying and not normal, it's just it's been made quite clear to them via Carter-Ruck what the consequences will be of printing so-called 'unhelpful' material! Even the fragrant Antonella Lazzeri of The Sun has,'t always written good stuff on them - back in the early days she wrote 'unhelpful' stuff like all the others. Now her writings resemble those of an awestruck fan!
It will be interesting to see, IF the review backs up what we suspect, how the papers will turn this all around.....

by rainbow-fairy 29.09.11 12:10

Honestly, this complete reversal of the coloboma issue should be enough for the police to swoop on the McCanns, surely? After all, it's not a small insignificant detail that got lost in translation, was it? it was a cynical, sustained operation over the last four YEARS! Posters, campaigns, songs, t-shirts.....
The way they have 180 degree turned is incredible! It's a bit like if Richard Dawkins were to announce "Me? I've always been a Christian - I believe in God and I read the scriptures. I NEVER made a big thing about atheism or evolution! My books? Oh, they were exaggerated by the Media..."
It's utter nonsense! Arrest them already - fraud and false advertising for starters?

by Guest 29.09.11 12:39

Which is precisely why they tried to use the Bryan Adams song, with the lyrics "look into my eyes", to emphasize the coloboma. Unfortunately for them, Bryan Adams did not give them permission to use his song and good for him.

by Gillyspot 29.09.11 12:42

Stella wrote:Which is precisely why they tried to use the Bryan Adams song, with the lyrics "look into my eyes", to emphasize the coloboma. Unfortunately for them, Bryan Adams did not give them permission to use his song and good for him.

Simple Minds (one of my old hero bands) let them use "Dont you forget about me" and that's put me right off them.

by Guest 29.09.11 13:04

Presumably the McCanns had permission from Dido to use one of her songs in the gross 2010 video in which the blue eye shadow photo first appeared. Another one off the playlist for me!

by rainbow-fairy 29.09.11 13:23

Marian wrote:Presumably the McCanns had permission from Dido to use one of her songs in the gross 2010 video in which the blue eye shadow photo first appeared. Another one off the playlist for me!

Hear, hear, Marian. I love Simple Minds and Dido, but - don't think I'll ever listen to them in same way again :-(

Incidentally, the video with the 'blue eyeshadow pic' - was that a 'still' in the film, or is the image from moving video?
I ask because - well, I don't think I know how to put this- that photo to me looks like one of a child who is not alive and well, if you get my meaning? I HATE looking at it, and not just 'coz of the make up! It really does make me feel queasy. If you look, there is no expression or 'life' in that child's eyes (and no coloboma - could see either?) Guess she could just be drugged, but IMHO she looks, well, deceased? Has anyone else noticed this or am I just odd?