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

by Guest 29.09.11 13:36

Rainbow Fairy, here's a link to the 2010 video to remind everyone of what the McCanns thought was a suitable anniversary souvenir!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L8fU6OA6yU

Yes you are not the first person to question whether the eye shadow person (I'm not even sure if it's Madeleine) is drugged or even dead.

by rainbow-fairy 29.09.11 13:51

Marian wrote:Rainbow Fairy, here's a link to the 2010 video to remind everyone of what the McCanns thought was a suitable anniversary souvenir!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L8fU6OA6yU

Yes you are not the first person to question whether the eye shadow person (I'm not even sure if it's Madeleine) is drugged or even dead.

Its so hard to tell, isn't it? I've looked back through the photo's of both my boys from birth - present. Yes, they grow older, yet 'stay the same'. The alleged photo's of 'Maddie' don't ring true - just the few I've seen could be three, four maybe more, different girls. So sad and odd.
Thank you for the link, will watch later :-)

by Guest 29.09.11 14:02

Rainbow Fairy: another link to all the photos issued by the McCanns for your leisure time.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELEINE_PHOTOS.htm

If all these photos are of the same child, I'll eat my hat!

by rainbow-fairy 29.09.11 14:29

Marian wrote:Rainbow Fairy: another link to all the photos issued by the McCanns for your leisure time.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELEINE_PHOTOS.htm

If all these photos are of the same child, I'll eat my hat!

And I'll say I'll eat mine too! I shall load that up now. Just wish I'd got 'proper' internet or better signal, this bb is sooo slow lol
Thanks again Marian, you're an angel!

by **tigger** 29.09.11 20:35

rainbow-fairy wrote:
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!

The interview was aired on the 11th of May. So when did Cameron decree the investigation? Because I just looked up the Daily Telegraph of the 11th which reports that they had written to ask for the investigation. Interview may not be live, letter no earlier than the 10th?
So they recall the coloboma and petition for an investigation almost at the same time. When did Clarrie leave? We only knew in late July I think, but did he leave before? When was that blessed sighting in India?

Goodness, a lot started happening once the book was published. Did any directors leave the Fund around that time?

by Guest 30.09.11 18:26

Hi Tigger. The infamous letter to David Cameron was dated 11th May and he replied on the 12th!! Is it definite that St Clarence has actually given up his wondrous job as McCanns' spokesman? I've never seen anything definite about that. As for the Leh sighting here's a link to the original story in July.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110724/main4.htm

by rainbow-fairy 30.09.11 20:02

Marian wrote:Hi Tigger. The infamous letter to David Cameron was dated 11th May and he replied on the 12th!! Is it definite that St Clarence has actually given up his wondrous job as McCanns' spokesman? I've never seen anything definite about that. As for the Leh sighting here's a link to the original story in July.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110724/main4.htm

I'm not totally convinced that the letter wasn't just a publicity stunt on K n G's part. It could even be they'd got wind of a review and it was they're way of pre-empting the announcement - a bit like Gerry saying the dogs were his idea!
Either that, or the behind-the-scenes letter to DC was sent some time before it was printed in The Sun. It's good publicity really for DC whether they ever get found guilty or not!

by **tigger** 01.10.11 8:23

Marian wrote:Hi Tigger. The infamous letter to David Cameron was dated 11th May and he replied on the 12th!! Is it definite that St Clarence has actually given up his wondrous job as McCanns' spokesman? I've never seen anything definite about that. As for the Leh sighting here's a link to the original story in July.

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2011/20110724/main4.htm

The Leh sighting was around the 23rd July. Not long before that, Clarrie stated that there were still 500 or so psychic sightings to be investigated.

On the 14th July he was on TM website, by the 29th he was whooshed. Someone phoned the TM? office and got confirmation he'd left.

But 4 directors of the Fund left soon before that? Will look up that date.

A fake sighting so soon after the book launch was perhaps a bridge too far? Basic 'follow up' sales technique.

There was a hint about Hungarian paedos in PdL earlier this year, then recently the book launch in Hungary but no transsylvanian sighting yet.
The ghastly German interviews just before that and their link to German paedos know to have been active in Portugal. I think the general public can only take so much.

I think the timeline of this year is worth a look. I agree that the letter in the Sun and DC's decision are rather too close together, so was it like the famous flea circus? The trick there is to call the command as you see the flea is about to jump, thus giving the impression that the flea is reacting to your cue.
Since they seem to have had quite a lot of help from the media, they would have been warned.
Didn't Kate give in a petition a little earlier? I remember seeing a photograph of her doing that. On that basis DC would have taken a decision (possibly fed up with their hogging the headlines) which could have leaked. Hence the open letter and a far too quick response from DC, surely it would have involved some consultation, the amount that could be spent, etc.
No, I think we've been getting the story back to front, it doesn't harm DC because he is now a quick acting PM and he's giving them a reason to shut up.

by Cristobell 28.11.11 15:36

tigger wrote:
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!

Really interesting stuff Tigger. Do we know if the Christmas 2005 picture was the very first to be released? This case gets curiouser and curiouser.

by Angelique 09.12.11 15:34

tigger wrote:
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!

tigger

Its been quite a while since I ran through any statements Rogatory or otherwise - but I do remember one of the Tapas 7 being asked about the photographs/this photo. Which ever one it was made a mess of his answer, something "they, we were looking for one from the front".

Is this the statement from Rob that you are referring to ?

I felt when reading it he slipped up and wasn't supposed to have mentioned it but considering a photo showing Madeleine's face would be appropriate maybe I am wrong to suspect that they wanted a photo in order to show the coloboma and that this was a pre-arranged thing.

by rainbow-fairy 09.12.11 18:37

Angelique wrote:
tigger wrote:
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!

tigger

Its been quite a while since I ran through any statements Rogatory or otherwise - but I do remember one of the Tapas 7 being asked about the photographs/this photo. Which ever one it was made a mess of his answer, something "they, we were looking for one from the front".

Is this the statement from Rob that you are referring to ?

I felt when reading it he slipped up and wasn't supposed to have mentioned it but considering a photo showing Madeleine's face would be appropriate maybe I am wrong to suspect that they wanted a photo in order to show the coloboma and that this was a pre-arranged thing.

I very much doubt you are wrong, Angelique... Wink

by **PeterMac** 19.04.12 16:42

I love the conditional way in which Kate says
"If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye."
Well - you are not, and you have.

by rainbow-fairy 19.04.12 18:17

PeterMac wrote:I love the conditional way in which Kate says
"If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye."
Well - you are not, and you have.

Its a linguistic classic, PeterMac - see Dr Roberts. "If I'm being honest" - and if you're not being honest, what then?
The same with 'actually' - when Kate says "And I just stood there, actually' - its all deceptive.
Were you taught to use Fornensic linguistics in the Force, PeterMac?

by Cristobell 19.04.12 18:25

Just read on JATYK that it was the PJ who published details of Madeleine's coloboma, not the McCanns. I wonder how long it will take for this new 'truth' to be established?

by rainbow-fairy 19.04.12 18:55

Cristobell wrote:Just read on JATYK that it was the PJ who published details of Madeleine's coloboma, not the McCanns. I wonder how long it will take for this new 'truth' to be established?

Just like the skanky pair they protect and defend, they really believe they can re-write history!
How in hell would the PJ even know if Maddie had a coloboma or not, seeing as her medical records were withheld?
And don't we all remember the clear advice the McCanns were given BY the PJ that to advertise her 'defect' would be ' a death sentence'. Gerry infamously said "It was a risky strategy, but in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy".
What saddo's, churning out yet more 'accounts of the truth' - but let us not forget - there is only ONE 'THE truth'...

by Guest 19.04.12 21:13

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Cristobell wrote:Just read on JATYK that it was the PJ who published details of Madeleine's coloboma, not the McCanns. I wonder how long it will take for this new 'truth' to be established?
Just like the skanky pair they protect and defend, they really believe they can re-write history!
How in hell would the PJ even know if Maddie had a coloboma or not, seeing as her medical records were withheld?
And don't we all remember the clear advice the McCanns were given BY the PJ that to advertise her 'defect' would be ' a death sentence'. Gerry infamously said "It was a risky strategy, but in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy".
What saddo's, churning out yet more 'accounts of the truth' - but let us not forget - there is only ONE 'THE truth'...

Yes, it was the McCanns, from the Vanity Fair interview................

Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id63.html

by rainbow-fairy 20.04.12 0:24

candyfloss wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
Cristobell wrote:Just read on JATYK that it was the PJ who published details of Madeleine's coloboma, not the McCanns. I wonder how long it will take for this new 'truth' to be established?
Just like the skanky pair they protect and defend, they really believe they can re-write history!
How in hell would the PJ even know if Maddie had a coloboma or not, seeing as her medical records were withheld?
And don't we all remember the clear advice the McCanns were given BY the PJ that to advertise her 'defect' would be ' a death sentence'. Gerry infamously said "It was a risky strategy, but in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy".
What saddo's, churning out yet more 'accounts of the truth' - but let us not forget - there is only ONE 'THE truth'...

Yes, it was the McCanns, from the Vanity Fair interview................

Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id63.html

TY for the link candyfloss, you're amazing I don't know how you do it!
I just don't for the life of me understand why the JATYK members (all five of them) write such demonstrably false nonsense. Do they really think the info and evidence will all have been 'whoosh-clunked' or are they just desperate to convince themselves and defend Team McCann at all costs?
Its sad enough being a liar. But lying to yourself really IS tragic.

by Willo 20.04.12 0:38

I sometimes wonder if these pro McCann forums are actually run by the McCann clan themselves. It must be hard for them to maintain the sugar sweet personas that they display to the media and British public. These forums perhaps let them vent all the pent up frustrations they hold as well as agitating the muddied waters even more. It would not at all surprise me if some of the IP addresses of the forum members lead straight to Rothley or other districts where other McCann relations reside.

by Ribisl 20.04.12 0:50

High Flying Canine said (quite succinctly)

Its sad enough being a liar. But lying to yourself really IS tragic.

I feel there is a new topic coming up

by **tigger** 20.04.12 6:45

The Vanity Fair interview is very important imo. Because of this article in Expresso: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id63.html

To 'Expresso', Clarence Mitchell revealed additionally that the extensive feature devoted to the Maddie case in the February issue of 'Vanity Fair' didn't please the McCanns. Although they're used to denying the news that is published daily in the Portuguese and British press, this instance "goes further".

In Mitchell's words, the incorrections start right at the beginning of the article, where it's announced "the first interview with Gerry McCann since he and his wife, Kate, were declared arguidos". And the conversation between the 'Vanity Fair' journalist, Judy Bachrach, and Gerry — that took place at the end of September — "should not have been transcribed. We agreed previously that it would be all off the record and the reporter agreed. We were caught by surprise".
unquote

by **tigger** 20.04.12 6:58

David Payne also mentioned the coloboma: rogatory interview.

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.""

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id236.html

by tuom 05.05.12 23:56

I may be wrong here but correct me if I am , I remember in the first few days of MMC being missing that I listened to John McCann saying on Sky News that MMC had a distinctive feature in her eye ? I think this was the first mention of it , as my husband and I both were wondering why it was not announced sooner

by **PeterMac** 04.08.13 11:13

I had missed this one.
Didn't make much of it, TO BE HONEST ! ! ! !

Why have the McCanns lied about Maddie's coloboma for 4 years? - Page 4 <a href=

Why have the McCanns lied about Maddie's coloboma for 4 years? - Page 4 Madele11

" />

Kevin, perhaps you can answer this. Why do your clients LIE ?

by worriedmum 04.08.13 12:59

http://clarencemitchell.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/6961945-clarrie-on-another-false-sighting

by Guest 04.08.13 13:09

I don't remember hearing about that sighting before.

More here.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/student-says-she-spotted-madeleine-mccann-294422

No surprise that she was with a scruffy foreigner!

I'm sure it's a silly question but what did the CCTV show?