Sorry, I need to kill a myth

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Sorry, I need to kill a myth

Post  Smokeandmirrors on Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:40 pm

I have checked on numerous websites using Google this afternoon, and I feel I must share. The average height for a 4 year old girl is 37" which computes to 93cms. Considering Madeleine was just shy of 4 she would, at 90cms be exactly where she should be. If anyone can find an average height chart to suggest differently I'll happily eat my tape measure with a dose of humility!



Tried to post link and failed:



www.cdc.gov



A growth chart which shows that although Madeleine was at the lower end it is certainly not an abnormal height, and in fact on going back to a couple of sites to check my claim, between 90-103cm or 37-46" have been quoted as normal! Thats a nine inch variant in the healthy range. It's like that with BMI for adults. 7st10lb through to about 10st is considered within an acceptable healthy range for a 5'5" inch woman of medium build, but that is quite a big gap, just over 2 stone!


Last edited by Smokeandmirrors on Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors

Posts: 1010
Join date: 2011-07-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Sorry, I need to kill a myth

Post  Guest on Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:44 pm

My two and a half year old is 91 cm.

Here is a chart

http://www.next.co.uk/help/WinHelpSGC.asp

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sorry, I need to kill a myth

Post  Smokeandmirrors on Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:06 pm

I looked at medical growth charts, but your son at two would be at the high end. The range is quite broad. My son started off about 98 percentile and has slowed down so he is around 70 now.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors

Posts: 1010
Join date: 2011-07-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Sorry, I need to kill a myth

Post  Guest on Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:46 pm

Smokeandmirrors wrote:I looked at medical growth charts, but your son at two would be at the high end. The range is quite broad. My son started off about 98 percentile and has slowed down so he is around 70 now.


Its a girl

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Sorry, I need to kill a myth

Post  Smokeandmirrors on Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:50 pm

Oops!

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors

Posts: 1010
Join date: 2011-07-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Sorry, I need to kill a myth

Post  HotlipsHealy on Sun Sep 18, 2011 9:31 pm

My daughter is nearly 3 and she is 95cm.

____________________

Kate McCann: It was our holiday too.


HotlipsHealy

Posts: 124
Join date: 2011-05-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Sorry, I need to kill a myth

Post  Gillyspot on Mon Sep 19, 2011 7:51 am

According to the Royal College of Paediatricians Madeleine would be in the bottom 0.4% of children for height at aged 4 (she was only 9 days off that age). The average height is 103 cms with the smallest being 91 cms and the tallest being 114cms

http://www.rcpch.ac.uk/sites/default/files/asset_library/Research/Growth%20Charts/Chart%20Images%20April%2009/A4%20Girls%20UKWHO%200-4.pdf

That still doesn't explain the picture of Madeleine by the playhouse though where she is shown to be around 40" tall i e 101.6 cms tall


Gillyspot

Posts: 1269
Join date: 2011-06-13

Back to top Go down

The Hairbrush and the Toothbrush

Post  One on Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:25 pm

I've seen lots of references to the lack of DNA evidence for Madeleine.

I think Gerry had to go home twice to get some, once was the saliva sample and the other was her hair for Krugel's machine.

But I can't find anything in the statements or in GA's book relating to a missing toothbrush or hairbrush. Is this a forum myth or have I missed something?

Thanks in advance.


One

Posts: 58
Join date: 2012-04-27

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum