Re: McCanns Easter break Donegal 2007

by aiyoyo 27.10.12 9:58

It is unusual in the sense that it is not normal for police to ask for any or your records unless you are under Police radar.

There can be only two possible reasons for the refusal. Ie. Home Office was either involved in the cover up, or it was displaying a xenophobic attitude in denial that a pair of white middle-class NHS doctors could be involved in their own daughter's disappearance. Either way the Home Office non-cooperation hampered investigators from a proper investigation.

by Smokeandmirrors 27.10.12 10:24

The refusal to grant access to credit card records only fuels the speculation about what might need to be concealed. Most peoples, I would imagine, would contain very mundane purchases, and there is the old adage if your innocent you have nothing to hide. Just like the medical records. Had the credit card records been revealed I wonder where or to whom the trail would have led?

by aiyoyo 27.10.12 17:00

Maybe PM can tell us whether it is within Scotland Yard's review team power or right to ask for the denied records for inclusion for review.

by DIBarlow 30.10.12 20:54

Probably slightly OT for the thread title, so apologies for that, but I notice that in the following two photos Maddie appears to be wearing the same dress?

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

The length of hair is also very comparable.

It's probably been covered before, but is it possible to put an accurate age to Maddie for these photos? As a comparison it seems some time before the following photo, judging by hair length and the size of the twin?

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

by Nina 30.10.12 21:00

DIBarlow wrote:Probably slightly OT for the thread title, so apologies for that, but I notice that in the following two photos Maddie appears to be wearing the same dress?

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

The length of hair is also very comparable.

It's probably been covered before, but is it possible to put an accurate age to Maddie for these photos? As a comparison it seems some time before the following photo, judging by hair length and the size of the twin?

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

The two framed photographs on the hearth of babies, do you think they could be of Madeleine? Can anyone enlarge them please?

by Miraflores 30.10.12 22:49

The red dresses are presumably Christmas with Amelie at 20 months old and Madeleine at 3 years 7 1/2 months? So the iconic photo showing the eye was of a little girl and was already 4 months out of date and children can change quite a lot at that age. Hmm, wonder why? Was this because it was the clearest photo they had of the eye defect, which they didn't make much about?

In the Donegal one Amelie and Sean do look much as they were in photos taken that summer, so I imagine that it was Easter ish time?

by **tigger** 31.10.12 8:10

Miraflores wrote:The red dresses are presumably Christmas with Amelie at 20 months old and Madeleine at 3 years 7 1/2 months? So the iconic photo showing the eye was of a little girl and was already 4 months out of date and children can change quite a lot at that age. Hmm, wonder why? Was this because it was the clearest photo they had of the eye defect, which they didn't make much about?

In the Donegal one Amelie and Sean do look much as they were in photos taken that summer, so I imagine that it was Easter ish time?

The red dress photograph was from christmas 2005, so one year and nearly 5 months before 3/5/07.
The Donegal photo is allegedly taken Easter 2007. The relative size of Maddie and Sean doesn't make sense. Maddie's body is barely bigger than Sean.

by Nina 31.10.12 8:13

tigger wrote:
Miraflores wrote:The red dresses are presumably Christmas with Amelie at 20 months old and Madeleine at 3 years 7 1/2 months? So the iconic photo showing the eye was of a little girl and was already 4 months out of date and children can change quite a lot at that age. Hmm, wonder why? Was this because it was the clearest photo they had of the eye defect, which they didn't make much about?

In the Donegal one Amelie and Sean do look much as they were in photos taken that summer, so I imagine that it was Easter ish time?

The red dress photograph was from christmas 2005, so one year and nearly 5 months before 3/5/07.
The Donegal photo is allegedly taken Easter 2007. The relative size of Maddie and Sean doesn't make sense. Maddie's body is barely bigger than Sean.

Yet there is a photo of Gerry walking holding Sean's hand and Sean looks very small. It is from the aftermath of the 'holiday', walking down an alleyway in PdL.

by **tigger** 31.10.12 9:21

Nina wrote:
tigger wrote:
Miraflores wrote:The red dresses are presumably Christmas with Amelie at 20 months old and Madeleine at 3 years 7 1/2 months? So the iconic photo showing the eye was of a little girl and was already 4 months out of date and children can change quite a lot at that age. Hmm, wonder why? Was this because it was the clearest photo they had of the eye defect, which they didn't make much about?

In the Donegal one Amelie and Sean do look much as they were in photos taken that summer, so I imagine that it was Easter ish time?

The red dress photograph was from christmas 2005, so one year and nearly 5 months before 3/5/07.
The Donegal photo is allegedly taken Easter 2007. The relative size of Maddie and Sean doesn't make sense. Maddie's body is barely bigger than Sean.

Yet there is a photo of Gerry walking holding Sean's hand and Sean looks very small. It is from the aftermath of the 'holiday', walking down an alleyway in PdL.

That supports my theory that the body, with the pretty dress we've never seen anywhere else (a lot of Maddie's clothes are in several photos) was that of a younger girl. The head is very clearly pasted on and slightly too large for the body.
Proportion is everything - the Donegal pictures are confusing and imo they don't prove at all that Maddie was in Donegal at that time.
The relative size of Sean and Maddie doesn't compare to e.g. the tennis photo and the one Nina mentioned. At nearly four, Maddie would be a good head taller than Sean.

by Guest 31.10.12 10:57

They did seem to have a lot of holidays. This is from Michael Wrights Rogatory statement...........

On our side, we visited them in Rothley in November 2006 and they repeated their visit [to us] in February 2007. We work well together as a group and we know each other very well. We were planning a family holiday [together] for June 2007 at Center Park.

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

So they went to see MW in Feb 2007. In April 2007 they were in Donegal. In May 2007 PDL, and then they were going to have a holiday at Center Parks in June 2007.

by pauline 31.10.12 11:28

All these holidays might explain why they couldn't afford the £9-10 ph to pay a nanny to babysit, and needed help paying their mortgage.

Holidays are good for health as they know well, being doctors.

by DIBarlow 01.11.12 20:00

tigger wrote:
Miraflores wrote:The red dresses are presumably Christmas with Amelie at 20 months old and Madeleine at 3 years 7 1/2 months? So the iconic photo showing the eye was of a little girl and was already 4 months out of date and children can change quite a lot at that age. Hmm, wonder why? Was this because it was the clearest photo they had of the eye defect, which they didn't make much about?

In the Donegal one Amelie and Sean do look much as they were in photos taken that summer, so I imagine that it was Easter ish time?

The red dress photograph was from christmas 2005, so one year and nearly 5 months before 3/5/07.
The Donegal photo is allegedly taken Easter 2007. The relative size of Maddie and Sean doesn't make sense. Maddie's body is barely bigger than Sean.

I do not think there is any doubt that the image chosen by the parents to broadcast around the world bore precious little resemblance to Maddie as she approached her 4th birthday.

This is truly astounding in my opinion.

As a yardstick, can anyone imagine the parents of poor April providing such an out-of-date image for people to try and find her?

by Guest 02.11.12 10:57

It has been questioned many times why old photos were issued immediately instead of those taken on the holiday.

Here is a link to the first Madeleine campaign film which does not include any of them.

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

This confirms that they never made much of the eye defect!!

by Guest 02.11.12 11:17

Thanks Jean. Isn't it amazing just how many articles and videos have been whooshed. Just clicked on the link to the BBC page linked on this article entitled 'Madeleine parents make denial' and low and behold a large gap where the video was.............whooshed!!!

by Guest 02.11.12 11:21

That's strange, Candyfloss. The video isn't whooshed where I am!

by Ribisl 02.11.12 11:28

candyfloss wrote:Thanks Jean. Isn't it amazing just how many articles and videos have been whooshed. Just clicked on the link to the BBC page linked on this article entitled 'Madeleine parents make denial' and low and behold a large gap where the video was.............whooshed!!!

Candyfloss I don't think it's been whooshed. I can see it and hear Gerry saying 'I've never heard before that anyone considered us as suspects in this.' coffee

by Guest 02.11.12 11:30

Jean wrote:That's strange, Candyfloss. The video isn't whooshed where I am!

Yes, you're right Jean, just gone back and it's there now. It was a blank spot before, how odd.

by Guest 02.11.12 12:14

It's interesting that, even at this early stage, there were suspicions about the McCanns. When Kate starts "To be honest....." you know that you're in for a load of porkies!

by DIBarlow 17.12.12 12:36

DIBarlow wrote:Probably slightly OT for the thread title, so apologies for that, but I notice that in the following two photos Maddie appears to be wearing the same dress?

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

The length of hair is also very comparable.

It's probably been covered before, but is it possible to put an accurate age to Maddie for these photos? As a comparison it seems some time before the following photo, judging by hair length and the size of the twin?

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

For links to the images to work, they have to be updated as instructed by Pamalam (insert '/m' after 'co.uk/')

by Lance De Boils 31.12.12 14:23

There was a very long thread on the MCF called "Dating the Photos". Can someone put it here? Well, not the whole thread, but the most recent compilation of pics on there with attempts at dating them. It's very interesting.

by DIBarlow 31.12.12 17:01

Of all the photographs released of Maddie, how many featured her 'constant companion' Cuddle Cat?

by Guest 31.12.12 17:06

In a word - none!

There is a baby photo where she has some sort of pink toy but it's not clear what it is.

by DIBarlow 31.12.12 17:11

Jean wrote:In a word - none!

There is a baby photo where she has some sort of pink toy but it's not clear what it is.

Really Jean? There are no photos of her with CC at all?

I recall the impression given by her parents that she never went anywhere without CC? One of the reasons they instantly 'knew' she'd been 'abducted' was that reliable old CC was still there in the apartment?

by Guest 31.12.12 17:22

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

The baby photo I mentioned is the first one on this link. All the others are of the McCanns' attempts to show us how important Cuddle Cat was to them and the twins.

by **tigger** 31.12.12 17:29

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

The baby photo I mentioned is the first one on this link. All the others are of the McCanns' attempts to show us how important Cuddle Cat was to them and the twins.

There is one where they're walking on the beach - one of the photo opportunities - and I swear Kate is hiding her giggling by using CC. Gerry is looking down, also suppressing a smile.

Log in for more topics