McCanns Easter break Donegal 2007

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:To avoid endless posts of the same photographs:

Thanks to Moa and Look4Maddy:

Avatar: absolutely not Maddie, teeth alone prove that. No gaps except one in the front.

Ice cream photograph, when it's full size - (thank you L4M) high resolution, it only strengthens my opinion:
1. non participation in action.
2. with this high resolution I can see a couple of 'fold' lines under Maddie's left ear which have no business being there, this would make sense if the neck didn't belong to the face and the original face was bent forwards. Which would make sense with eating ice-cream. The ice cream she's holding should have collapsed at the point, impossible to hold it like that for even a second.
3. with the twins, definitely Maddie. I expect someone grinned at her just like that and she imitated it.
4. pale blue pyjamas, Maddie, coloboma pasted in close to 6 o'clock
5 . not at all sure about this one, may well be face pasted on, reason is the rather knuckled hand holding the scarf, looks too old.
coloboma shopped in at 7 o'clock. Face heavily bleached out, no eye bags. Probably Maddie.

And to avoid that we should take your oppinion as the truth then ? After all this is just your oppinions Tigger... If thats what you meant about avoid endless post about the pictures? Or did you mean not having the pictures in the post.. I might have misunderstood you

Exactly that Moa, to avoid making the topic very long with repeats of pictures. I just quickly listed my take on them. L4M does post very high resolution pictures - I was pointing out what else I could see.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Maddie's hands, but it is funny that in both the rock photo and the scarf photo her hand looks too 'old' . Toddlers have plump little hands, not with big knuckles.
One reason I doubt the Donegal pictures is that they were available so soon, nothing about the story connected seems to be true - the 29 to 47 members at the reunion - the weather,the actual close ties, the fact that Kate herself states in the bewk that it was their first visit and most of all, because the relative proportions of the children are wrong. Maddie is almost the same size as Sean - so if it was a smallish 3 yr old, and the poster photo is of a small 'compact' girl - I'm just wondering if that girl was the sub.
Although someone spotted Amelie's jacket hanging in 5a on one photo, I've never seen that pretty dress that 'Maddie' wears there in any other snap. Neither has Kate mentioned this dress.

Than im sorry for taking it the wrong way at first thought ..Always having the defending clows out lol !

I do find things odd, there are pictures im finding odd, like the make up pic, but I truly do not believe that they manipulated pictures years back..I see no reason for doing so..I believe the PDL pictures could have been tampered with..

On the other side, I do find it most odd that K said in the cowell? interview that they never made a big thing out of the bearly visible FLECK in her eye,and that they also now where sure it was not colomba!! When their entire campaign was based on exacly that FLECK. Why ? Maybe it is true and they just at the time, to gain publicity, over dramatised that fleck? Or are they lying about the fleck, and it never was there? If that is the case,. I guess a lot of people who has met Madeleine would react on that if she acually didnt have it..

So many answers to manipulated pictures, involves again a lot of people in the knowing.And I do not believe that all those people , not one would say
something?

I know the truth hasn't been told in this case, I strongly believe K+G knows what happened.. But I do find it hard to truly find a good reason for manipulating all those pictures, and lie about the fleck in her eye, other than making the fleck into a colomba, as a good marketing ploy...That also means IMO they knew she was already "gone", so if the information going out in the public wasnt accurate it didnt matter, because she was nowhere to be found anyway..Can also explain why they gave the wrong hight, old picture so on.. Maybe thats why it took so long to publish the "last" photo, because that would be the hardest one to look at if she accidently died...Maybe thats why they chose a less prettier,younger picture of her the first weeks ?

I don't know, there are many things pointing in many direction, most direction just stops at one point for my part,it gets to complicated.. I believe in a less complicated scenario.. I do not believe it was preplanned, unsure about the sub, that could be if she died earlier in the vacation..But im not leaning on that theory either...

I believe she died , by accident, on that holliday. How, when and where, is what im hoping to one day get the answers to....

Moa, if they put a coloboma in one photograph, then they had to do it in all the ones they published. They did not need to do this years in advance as you seem to imply.
As for the 'less prettier' picture. Most people like that one the best, it was a masterstroke. Now - it's in the PJ files: this picture was ready on the night she disappeared. About 30 copies were printed on quality paper.
This proves: that the coloboma had to have been added at an earlier date. It's rather too much to expect Gerry or Kate to do this whilst they were so busy deleting calls from their mobiles, phoning the family to say nothing was being done and writing and re-writing timelines.
This simply means premeditation.
Maddie wasn't that well known outside her family and the family played along with everything else.
If you read the whole of the 'substitute child' topic, you may get a better idea why.
I can't find the post of the professional who analysed the Everton photo. I doubt whether you'd believe her in any case. Your avatar cannot be Maddie on the evidence of the teeth alone and I gather you don't believe that either.

tigger wrote:

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:To avoid endless posts of the same photographs:

Thanks to Moa and Look4Maddy:

Avatar: absolutely not Maddie, teeth alone prove that. No gaps except one in the front.

Ice cream photograph, when it's full size - (thank you L4M) high resolution, it only strengthens my opinion:
1. non participation in action.
2. with this high resolution I can see a couple of 'fold' lines under Maddie's left ear which have no business being there, this would make sense if the neck didn't belong to the face and the original face was bent forwards. Which would make sense with eating ice-cream. The ice cream she's holding should have collapsed at the point, impossible to hold it like that for even a second.
3. with the twins, definitely Maddie. I expect someone grinned at her just like that and she imitated it.
4. pale blue pyjamas, Maddie, coloboma pasted in close to 6 o'clock
5 . not at all sure about this one, may well be face pasted on, reason is the rather knuckled hand holding the scarf, looks too old.
coloboma shopped in at 7 o'clock. Face heavily bleached out, no eye bags. Probably Maddie.

And to avoid that we should take your oppinion as the truth then ? After all this is just your oppinions Tigger... If thats what you meant about avoid endless post about the pictures? Or did you mean not having the pictures in the post.. I might have misunderstood you [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Exactly that Moa, to avoid making the topic very long with repeats of pictures. I just quickly listed my take on them. L4M does post very high resolution pictures - I was pointing out what else I could see.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Maddie's hands, but it is funny that in both the rock photo and the scarf photo her hand looks too 'old' . Toddlers have plump little hands, not with big knuckles.
One reason I doubt the Donegal pictures is that they were available so soon, nothing about the story connected seems to be true - the 29 to 47 members at the reunion - the weather,the actual close ties, the fact that Kate herself states in the bewk that it was their first visit and most of all, because the relative proportions of the children are wrong. Maddie is almost the same size as Sean - so if it was a smallish 3 yr old, and the poster photo is of a small 'compact' girl - I'm just wondering if that girl was the sub.
Although someone spotted Amelie's jacket hanging in 5a on one photo, I've never seen that pretty dress that 'Maddie' wears there in any other snap. Neither has Kate mentioned this dress.

Than im sorry for taking it the wrong way at first thought [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] ..Always having the defending clows out lol ! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I do find things odd, there are pictures im finding odd, like the make up pic, but I truly do not believe that they manipulated pictures years back..I see no reason for doing so..I believe the PDL pictures could have been tampered with..

On the other side, I do find it most odd that K said in the cowell? interview that they never made a big thing out of the bearly visible FLECK in her eye,and that they also now where sure it was not colomba!! When their entire campaign was based on exacly that FLECK. Why ? Maybe it is true and they just at the time, to gain publicity, over dramatised that fleck? Or are they lying about the fleck, and it never was there? If that is the case,. I guess a lot of people who has met Madeleine would react on that if she acually didnt have it..

So many answers to manipulated pictures, involves again a lot of people in the knowing.And I do not believe that all those people , not one would say
something?

I know the truth hasn't been told in this case, I strongly believe K+G knows what happened.. But I do find it hard to truly find a good reason for manipulating all those pictures, and lie about the fleck in her eye, other than making the fleck into a colomba, as a good marketing ploy...That also means IMO they knew she was already "gone", so if the information going out in the public wasnt accurate it didnt matter, because she was nowhere to be found anyway..Can also explain why they gave the wrong hight, old picture so on.. Maybe thats why it took so long to publish the "last" photo, because that would be the hardest one to look at if she accidently died...Maybe thats why they chose a less prettier,younger picture of her the first weeks ?

I don't know, there are many things pointing in many direction, most direction just stops at one point for my part,it gets to complicated.. I believe in a less complicated scenario.. I do not believe it was preplanned, unsure about the sub, that could be if she died earlier in the vacation..But im not leaning on that theory either...

I believe she died , by accident, on that holliday. How, when and where, is what im hoping to one day get the answers to....

Moa, if they put a coloboma in one photograph, then they had to do it in all the ones they published. They did not need to do this years in advance as you seem to imply.
As for the 'less prettier' picture. Most people like that one the best, it was a masterstroke. Now - it's in the PJ files: this picture was ready on the night she disappeared. About 30 copies were printed on quality paper.
This proves: that the coloboma had to have been added at an earlier date. It's rather too much to expect Gerry or Kate to do this whilst they were so busy deleting calls from their mobiles, phoning the family to say nothing was being done and writing and re-writing timelines.
This simply means premeditation.
Maddie wasn't that well known outside her family and the family played along with everything else.
If you read the whole of the 'substitute child' topic, you may get a better idea why.
I can't find the post of the professional who analysed the Everton photo. I doubt whether you'd believe her in any case. Your avatar cannot be Maddie on the evidence of the teeth alone and I gather you don't believe that either.

Now, what is that saying? The one, being an equestrienne, I'm very familiar with?
Oh yes. 'You can lead a horse to water, but you sure as hell can't make it drink'

We can have different opinions without beeing rude, right?

Tigger ; why would you say I probably wont believe the analyzes of the Eventon shirt? I find that rude and very judging...I read everything with an open mind !

And I did not implay that they alterede the comlomba years ago, I simply didnt find a good enough reason to alter all the photographs beeing discussed, her hands etc.. If the colomba is a lie as they state them self, than its obviouse the eye has been altered in a lot of photos as atleast I was trying to say.. (sorry as english is not my first language) That don't mean it ws pre planned. If she died earlier that holliday they would have time to do it, and lot of the pictures wherent reliced before weeks later, wich would have given them time to enhance the fleck in her eye...

I just find it hard to believe that so many peopel are involved, and know, and not one person steps up and say something..Not everyone in the knowing would be close to them imo..

Rainbow-Fairy - I defently think you have some good points, and yes I do agree your point of view could be just as true as my point of view..
The question is did they do it ( leave the kids alone ) with bad intensions? Some people believe they werent left alone at all, but I believe they where , and that they wasn't cheked up on as often as they say.

I just don't think they went to that holliday with the goal to get rid(?) of Madeleine....I guess that is my starting point..I have read the whole tread about sub, Stellas work, kikorans work, well I think I read and rearead everything on this forum to be true..I spend atleast 12 hours on my computer everyday, way to many, 8 of those are at work if thats an good excuse

But as said before, on each and every road I get to and dead end, and it just gets to complicated and to many people involved in the story. I believe the truth is realy simple, and everything just took of from there. I think it even went bigger then they thought it would themself, wich has putten them in this situation today where they still have to lie publicy.

AS to Estelles Theory, well I don't believe D + G preplanned to do anything like you describe, and beating Kate and so on..

There can be so many reasons for people acting the way they do..

I don't understand why that picture (front cover of the book) has been so "popular" I think that is one of the less prettiest pictures there is of her..

I still believe my avatar not to be Kate atleast, I cant say for sure it is Madeleine, but its deffently not Kate imo !

If you find that link re everton analyze any day Tigger I would love to read it..

There has also been an expert analyzing the last pool photo without finding anything wrong with it.. I guess as humans we would first of all believe more in the things leaning to our own believes, and thats why you Tigger don't believe the experts opinion on that pool photo..And why you think I wont believe the analyze about the everton shirt, IMO :) Truth is if the analyzes is good and backed up with facts, why would I not believe it?

What I found most weird about the pictures is that on the everton picture she do look older than on the PDL pictures, more like a 5 / 6 year old than a nearly 4 year old.. She looks different, older, higher..

All tough there are many good points and opinions on here, I just can't get my self to truly believe it was pre planned before their holiday...

Im still sticking with an accident on the holliday snow ball effect..As in my eyes most evidence point in that direction.. I do always try to see the best in people, but I have also felt and seen the evil , and im not saying its impossible that k +G are in the last category, its just not my believe.. Even tough they neglected their children those nights in PDL..And defently shouldnt have left them alone.. The fact that they did could also mean they lack the ability to make good desicions..Doctors or not, doctors do bad desitions too...I do not have to mean they didn't love or like their kids..

Well im off the computer, as summer has come 3 months earlier to my home land :D we usually have snow at this time, but know I can acually lay in my bikini and get meself som tanning

Peace and Love ppl

Dear Moa,

Hope your sunbathing was nice so early in the year.

Just one quote from you:
I still believe my avatar not to be Kate atleast, I cant say for sure it is Madeleine, but its deffently not Kate imo !
unquote

You see, I don't really care whether your avatar is Marilyn Monroe or whoever, the point is that it can't be Maddie.
Because the teeth prove that. Any dentist will tell you that separated little baby teeth like Maddie shows in many photographs can turn into the close-fitting teeth with just the one gap in the middle - (as can be seen in the 'last' photograph which incidentally was checked by an expert and found to have been photoshopped - although Maddie may not have been retouched, other areas are and Maddie looks a little young for four years old there - basically you may have seen another 'expert' opinion. By the way, Gerry's sunglasses reflect the poolside vertically - another mystery)

I'm just picking on this particular part of your answer because it may explain why I don't want to spend more time explaining and finding references.
I explained about the coloboma and the significance of the poster photo in that respect. You're entitled to ignore that, but I'm entitled to stop explaining.
No hard feelings, I'll watch your posts with interest.

Correction: baby teeth like Maddie shows in many photographs cannot turn into the close-fitting teeth with just the one gap in the middle

Like Rainbow Fairy and Russiandoll I have often wondered if Madeleine was ever in PDL.

The waitress at the Millennium on 28th supposes she was there but only recalls the twins. At 5a all beds were unmade except for Madeleine's on Wed morning.

Kate doesn't seem so convincing either. On Tuesday she got up from her perfectly made up bed to sleep with her parents and tell them that Amelie was crying. I'm not falling for the myth that the twins lay down in their little travel cots like angels and waited for their parents to rouse them. Any two year old that had woken up would be more than able to swing their leg over the side of the cot and go find their own parent.

On Thursday morning Madeleine asked why the parents didn't come when Sean and she were crying. Why didn't she go get them like she did the previous night? Kate mentions that she wondered if she cried when she was "getting" her bath? She says this on camera because she's trying to be as truthful as possible. But it doesn't really ring true to the fairytale about the famous last night with the stories and the engagement ring etc etc. Kate chants the same mantra time after time. It was very safe to neglect he children between 8 and 12 every night, they'd be perfectly fine and never cry. The only danger would be from the bad abductor.

Then dutiful Kate washes out the "stain" from the pyjama top that she assumes was a tea stain because Madeleine would have the odd little cup occasionally. No mention of making the little cup or Madeleine enjoying it or spilling it. If I found a stain on a 3 year old's top I'd be racking my brains to remember what put it here and if not I'd be asking the child quickly. What if it was poison?

On Thursday night Kate checks at 10 O Clock and Madeleine is not in her bed. So she decides Madeleine had woken and "gone through" to their bedroom. Here we're supposed to buy that Madeleine would have found the bed empty but just hopped in and snuggled up by herself and awaited her parent's return. While of course keeping a watchful eye on the twins and no doubt made her bed up perfectly first.

The tapas alibi was all set from Sunday 29th. What I just can't work out is how they enlisted the help of the T7. Anything else like the substitute and a freezer involves even more personalities. What was the hold they had over the others that they'd risk losing careers, family and prison for? I've always had the belief that they settled for plan B and something went very wrong for them with plan A. But I suppose even one hour after an unreported death of a minor would be past the point of no return for all of them.

Yes Molly, nice to see you!
Anyway, the only two conversations recorded between the parents and Maddie in PdL are on the morning and in the evening of the 3rd.
That's it, nothing else - unless you count the bit where Maddie jumped into the swimming pool and told Kate to come in.

The famous conversation about crying and in the evening allegedly she told Kate she had had the best day ever. Which anyone who has ever had any kind of relationship with a toddler will know to be hogwash.

These two conversations are to prove she was alive both that morning and that night.

I think the main reason we know so little about Maddie is that her parents didn't either. They just don't seem to have been interested during her little life - otherwise we'd have had a book about Maddie and we'd know exactly how she talked, played and what she liked to eat.
We do however, know all these things about Kate - through the bewk - too bad, because all we're interested in is Maddie.

tigger wrote:Correction: baby teeth like Maddie shows in many photographs cannot turn into the close-fitting teeth with just the one gap in the middle

But the teeth can go from this to more gaps, so if this is an earlier picture, the teeths could have slipt apparter as she grows? I think the teeths on this one looks similar to the other pictures I posted a few pages back..

As for the sunglasses to Jerry, Thats sortet out on the pamalam site, its because of the glasses it is vertical. If they photoshopped it I dont think they would been so idiotic to do it verticaly.. According to pamalam its supposed to be that way according to an expert..

Lets just agree to disagree :)

And yes thank you the sun bath was very welcoming :)

So between the time your avatar photograph was taken and the 'last photograph' in PdL her little jaw grew so quickly that all her teeth suddenly had spaces in between?
Apart from the fact that your avatar actually looks older than Maddie does in PdL?

Thank you, I needed a good laugh.

Please don't react to this post, I won't reply.

A good laugh makes you live longer so you are welcome :)

Im not sure about the age, but I think she looks younger than atlest some of the PDL pictures, ( not the pool picture)
But if thats not M and its defently not K then who is it ? After all she does look like the girls on the other pictures..Except her teeth look more perfect..But I also think the teeth looks the same as many other pic of "her". What she does not look like is the famouse book front picture, where her teeths are spread everywhere compared to many others.. So who is the real one then ?

My first tought was that kids loses their first teeths, wich gives them gaps, but after re thinking, that ofcourse do not happen at the age of 3 or 4, but at the age 5-7 years.. So does that mean the teeths are the same from your first tooth and until they start falling out (milktooths) ? Im asking because im unsure, I have a girl at home, that just turned 3, and they do change a lot in that age, but can't say I see any changes in the teeth structure, as I do see in her brother, but thats because he already has lost 4 teeths.. Will try to look at older pictures, I got the girl when she was 2 so I can't say how they where before that..

maybe I just want my avatar to be M because she looks happy and normal on it...And maybe thats why I insist its not K, I truly don't believe it can be her...

Moa wrote:A good laugh makes you live longer so you are welcome :)

Im not sure about the age, but I think she looks younger than atlest some of the PDL pictures, ( not the pool picture)
But if thats not M and its defently not K then who is it ? After all she does look like the girls on the other pictures..Except her teeth look more perfect..But I also think the teeth looks the same as many other pic of "her". What she does not look like is the famouse book front picture, where her teeths are spread everywhere compared to many others.. So who is the real one then ?

My first tought was that kids loses their first teeths, wich gives them gaps, but after re thinking, that ofcourse do not happen at the age of 3 or 4, but at the age 5-7 years.. So does that mean the teeths are the same from your first tooth and until they start falling out (milktooths) ? Im asking because im unsure, I have a girl at home, that just turned 3, and they do change a lot in that age, but can't say I see any changes in the teeth structure, as I do see in her brother, but thats because he already has lost 4 teeths.. Will try to look at older pictures, I got the girl when she was 2 so I can't say how they where before that..

maybe I just want my avatar to be M because she looks happy and normal on it...And maybe thats why I insist its not K, I truly don't believe it can be her...

Why do you truly not believe it to be K?
The teeth, the gap, the mouth, cheeks - all identical. I'm with tigger on this one, 100%.
Sadly, wanting it to be Maddie because she looks happy doesn't make it so does it? Realistically most of the pics do NOT show a happy child.
If the book photo is Maddie (the photo that was released for the world to look for her) IS Maddie, then your avatar picture cannot be here. As you have conceded, baby teeth do not grow closer together, not as much would be needed to make those pictures the same person.
If your AVATAR is Maddie, then the book photo cannot be. Considering they released to the world, WHY would they do that?
The most pertinent question of all is this? Why are they releasing ANY photo's that are not of their daughter?

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Moa wrote:A good laugh makes you live longer so you are welcome :)

Im not sure about the age, but I think she looks younger than atlest some of the PDL pictures, ( not the pool picture)
But if thats not M and its defently not K then who is it ? After all she does look like the girls on the other pictures..Except her teeth look more perfect..But I also think the teeth looks the same as many other pic of "her". What she does not look like is the famouse book front picture, where her teeths are spread everywhere compared to many others.. So who is the real one then ?

My first tought was that kids loses their first teeths, wich gives them gaps, but after re thinking, that ofcourse do not happen at the age of 3 or 4, but at the age 5-7 years.. So does that mean the teeths are the same from your first tooth and until they start falling out (milktooths) ? Im asking because im unsure, I have a girl at home, that just turned 3, and they do change a lot in that age, but can't say I see any changes in the teeth structure, as I do see in her brother, but thats because he already has lost 4 teeths.. Will try to look at older pictures, I got the girl when she was 2 so I can't say how they where before that..

maybe I just want my avatar to be M because she looks happy and normal on it...And maybe thats why I insist its not K, I truly don't believe it can be her...

Why do you truly not believe it to be K?
The teeth, the gap, the mouth, cheeks - all identical. I'm with tigger on this one, 100%.
Sadly, wanting it to be Maddie because she looks happy doesn't make it so does it? Realistically most of the pics do NOT show a happy child.
If the book photo is Maddie (the photo that was released for the world to look for her) IS Maddie, then your avatar picture cannot be here. As you have conceded, baby teeth do not grow closer together, not as much would be needed to make those pictures the same person.
If your AVATAR is Maddie, then the book photo cannot be. Considering they released to the world, WHY would they do that?
The most pertinent question of all is this? Why are they releasing ANY photo's that are not of their daughter?

I know and I wonder the same.. I just think the girl is to pretty to be Kate, and thats it. And someone stated it was her cousins G and F next to her so then obviouse it can't be kate...

I wish we had a clearer picture than my avatar. If you click on the same picture at the pamalam site, the site comes up blank...All the other works fine, and so did this when I found it the first time...Coinsidence?

I think its interresting to look at all the pictures together on this site
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Particuallry the pumpkin picture, the face and smile looks very different to Madeleine... If she died by accident that could be a reason for releasing pictures thats not of her? Easier for them to look at, and it doesnt matter since shes not findable?

And the two big ones that shift at the bottom of the page, the book photo is in still, and above it is many pictures of her shifting, interesting for compering.

I dont know why they done what they done.. I mean they done lots of strange, weired, unlogical things...How can anyone sain explain ?

Moa I looked at the Pamalam pictures again and I'm almost certain that your icon picture was taken on the same day as these two others. Her teeth seem to be not as gappy because the pictures are all a little out of focus like they were taken on a camera phone or with a low shutter speed. If you look at her bangs in all three pictures, they look identical, so does the coloring of her hair from that particular camera. And Fiona, at least, seems to be in those pictures too.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I don't think that's Maddie at all, Tumbleweed, just because she's sitting on Gerry's back. It's only one picture, the bottom one is enlarged and 'flipped' - why I don't know.
The teeth are clearly closely spaced -probably the same girl as Moa's avatar, but not Maddie.
Children of that age tend to look alike when colouring and hairstyle are similar. Brigit Wilkins mentioned particularly about there being about 10 little blond girls of the same age at PdL.
I'm sorry, but why is it so important that these photographs have to be of Maddie? Maddie's teeth were very irregular and very spaced, even for a child that age, no way can the camera disguise that.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" Now you've brought it up, there is something that has always raised questionmarks. I believe the Homevideo we know of Madeleine (the first few pictures) are taken at the same time as the pictures you posted. Since you can see Fiona, her brother and Gerry on his knees, Madeleine trying to get on Gerry's back for a ponyride. So i believe these are taken the same night and time. What then makes me wonder is... the one were Madeleine holds a present for "Auntie Claire", its the same pyjama, (believed to be taken the next morning? or that same morning?) but her hair looks so much shorter and well the whole girl looks so different to me! Maybe it is just me, but it has always made me wonder! She doesnt look as happy, you can see her laughing and enjoying herself and her family in the video with Gerry and Fiona. Yet the one with the present she looks completely different and much "smaller????!!!" and even scared in my eyes. Really insecure if you could say so??

tumbleweed wrote:Moa I looked at the Pamalam pictures again and I'm almost certain that your icon picture was taken on the same day as these two others. Her teeth seem to be not as gappy because the pictures are all a little out of focus like they were taken on a camera phone or with a low shutter speed. If you look at her bangs in all three pictures, they look identical, so does the coloring of her hair from that particular camera. And Fiona, at least, seems to be in those pictures too.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

going across from left to right,the first pic and the 6th pic, Madeleines hair look longer than the other pics

tiny wrote:going across from left to right,the first pic and the 6th pic, Madeleines hair look longer than the other pics

Yes I know, I've always wondered, did she have a haircut on christmas eve? LOL Her hair looks longer when she's riding gerry's back then the one were she's holding up a present for "auntie Claire"

Look4Maddy wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" Now you've brought it up, there is something that has always raised questionmarks. I believe the Homevideo we know of Madeleine (the first few pictures) are taken at the same time as the pictures you posted. Since you can see Fiona, her brother and Gerry on his knees, Madeleine trying to get on Gerry's back for a ponyride. So i believe these are taken the same night and time. What then makes me wonder is... the one were Madeleine holds a present for "Auntie Claire", its the same pyjama, (believed to be taken the next morning? or that same morning?) but her hair looks so much shorter and well the whole girl looks so different to me! Maybe it is just me, but it has always made me wonder! She doesnt look as happy, you can see her laughing and enjoying herself and her family in the video with Gerry and Fiona. Yet the one with the present she looks completely different and much "smaller????!!!" and even scared in my eyes. Really insecure if you could say so??

tumbleweed wrote:Moa I looked at the Pamalam pictures again and I'm almost certain that your icon picture was taken on the same day as these two others. Her teeth seem to be not as gappy because the pictures are all a little out of focus like they were taken on a camera phone or with a low shutter speed. If you look at her bangs in all three pictures, they look identical, so does the coloring of her hair from that particular camera. And Fiona, at least, seems to be in those pictures too.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

There are some differences:

1. 'photogirl' looks healthier and happier, fleshier too in the face (double chin), than 'filmgirl';
2. photogirl is taller: just compare the length of the trouser legs;
3. idem: look at the shirt. Both girls wear it, but on filmgirl it ends at her waist. With Maddie it reaches down much lower;
4. Maddies hair is parted on the left; photogirls' on the right. Would this explain why the picture with GM in it is mirrored?

Filmgirl has the walls beneath the eyes which -I think- are typical of the real Maddie.

who do you think this other girl is? IMO the photos all show the same girl, her top and pants are riding up when she is on Gerrys back because she is sitting not standing.
And yes I believe that this little girl is Maddie McCann, with her father and cousins

russiandoll wrote:who do you think this other girl is? IMO the photos all show the same girl, her top and pants are riding up when she is on Gerrys back because she is sitting not standing.
And yes I believe that this little girl is Maddie McCann, with her father and cousins

IMO the second girl (holding the present) looks alot different, her hair seems alot shorter (bobline) and the face looks different to me.

Look4Maddy wrote:

russiandoll wrote:who do you think this other girl is? IMO the photos all show the same girl, her top and pants are riding up when she is on Gerrys back because she is sitting not standing.
And yes I believe that this little girl is Maddie McCann, with her father and cousins

IMO the second girl (holding the present) looks alot different, her hair seems alot shorter (bobline) and the face looks different to me.

I agree. She looks a lot different around the eyes too.

The hair on photographs 2, 5 and 9 looks again like a wig or hairpiece to me. Sorry, I keep going on about it, but you can clearly see the strange highlight and lowlights in bands. Whereas the girl on Gerry's back reminds me more of the one in the pumpkin costume and/or Moa's avatar.
The smile is very confident and open - this confidence rarely comes across in Maddie's photographs.

I may well be wrong of course, so don't hold it against me, still think the gaps in the teeth would be visible. Shame their video clips are so grainy.

If these pics were taken at the same time then pic 1 and pic 6 are not Madeleine as her hair is much longer than in pic 10

tigger wrote:I don't think that's Maddie at all, Tumbleweed, just because she's sitting on Gerry's back. It's only one picture, the bottom one is enlarged and 'flipped' - why I don't know.
The teeth are clearly closely spaced -probably the same girl as Moa's avatar, but not Maddie.
Children of that age tend to look alike when colouring and hairstyle are similar. Brigit Wilkins mentioned particularly about there being about 10 little blond girls of the same age at PdL.
I'm sorry, but why is it so important that these photographs have to be of Maddie? Maddie's teeth were very irregular and very spaced, even for a child that age, no way can the camera disguise that.

I don't know what to think, which is why I comment so rarely. I can't say anything for certain about any of this. But I do really strongly believe that the picture from Moa's icon is the same girl taken on the same day as the others posted. You can even see colors from Gregor's shirt in the icon that match what he's wearing in the Christmas pictures. As for who the child is, if it isn't Maddie, then I have no speculation to offer. I'd just often wondered about Moa's icon too bc I agree it does look so different from other pictures of her, just like a lot of the pictures do.

Her hair definitely looks longer in the pictures where she is with others and smiling. You can see it bunching up on her shoulders, whereas the pictures of her alone show her with a short bob. I know all of this speculation about her photos/appearance has to sound crazy to some, but I consider myself pretty sane, and I find so many inconsistencies like this while looking at so many of her pictures, even before I became aware of this forum or topics such as this. I can't even begin to make sense of it. I mean, unless she had a twin or something, I don't know...