Re: Madeleine's 'make-up 'photo

by Hicks 12.09.13 18:34

Hicks wrote:
BerylJ wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:
Hicks wrote:
Angelique wrote:I wanted to say this in an earlier post but deleted it - but I personally don't agree that this is a "death mask" picture. But if we accept that they have photoshopped previous pictures it's possible to do the same with any picture including the eyes. I refer comperedna5 's information about the iris.
I have also wondered about the eyes, whether they had been altered after reading comperedna5 comments about the iris, the whole picture seems to have been played with, the ears are definitely not in the right place.
The face looks to have a blue tint( covered up by the make up?). Read 'what happens to a body after death' .
I've looked and magnified the photo again, agree the face does have a bluish tint, I found it more noticeable from the bottom lip down to the chin right side. Her eyes are so distant, imo she is highly drugged or she is beyond any help

windchime, yes should have said after.
If only we could see what/who is reflected in her eyes.
I have magnified the photo to 400%, look like someone with a white/cream top maybe.

I am not techy so wouldn't have clue, does anyone know if there is a computer process that could blow up/show up what is reflected in the eyes?

Perhaps I am seeing things.... could someone please magnify the eyes to 400%. What do you see regarding the pupil?

by **tigger** 12.09.13 19:12

Those eyes are definitely photoshopped. The left eye (on the right ) appears to have no pupil at all and a curious 90degree angle next to the tear duct. The vertical line is carried over the eyelid.

The right eye has the coloboma running into the eyelid. The light reflected in that pupil should also be in the left eye but it isn't.

by Hicks 12.09.13 19:42

tigger wrote:Those eyes are definitely photoshopped. The left eye (on the right ) appears to have no pupil at all and a curious 90degree angle next to the tear duct. The vertical line is carried over the eyelid.

The right eye has the coloboma running into the eyelid. The light reflected in that pupil should also be in the left eye but it isn't.

Thank you tigger. That was my thought on the left eye (on the right side).

The mind truly boggles.

by Guest 13.09.13 9:37

I hate that picture ...everything about it is disturbing.

I agree about her eyes being shopped but that's par for the course with Madeleine photos.

Her neck in this photo gets to me. It should be straight and symmetrical to support her head if she had been looking down into the camera but her neck on the right is pushed out like she is unconscious and her head has rolled back. It's not a natural or comfortable position to hold your head. There also seems to be a lot of bruising round her throat that someone has tried to photoshop out and in so doing they have created an strange nick or ledge in her neck on the left.

by j.rob 15.05.14 12:09

Really makes you wonder what all this says about the state of our medical profession, our social services, our police force and much else besides. And the press. Was there not one single journalist or newspaper editor that looked at those awful photos of Madeleine (not to mention the creepy videos and Madeleine was Here episodes for Channel 4) and thought: 'this is not right?' I mean, what is going on here?

Oh yes, page 90 of Madeleine - Kate recounts how Bridget O'Donnell in an article she published several months 'down the line', described how the police officer wrote down answers 'to questions 'on a loose piece of paper rather than a notebook.'

Gosh, how shocking Bridget!

But "of greater concern was his reaction to a photocopied picture of a little girl he noticed lying on their table. He asked them if she was their daughter. Bridget explained that this was Madeleine, the little girl they were supposed to be looking for. 'My heart sank for the McCAnns,' she remembered."

The cheek of it! Given that the parents themselves were unable to produce a single up-to-date photo of their daughter. And that the photos that they have produced of her appear to be heavily photo-shopped and/or appallingly inappropriate, they have a bit of a nerve criticizing the police response who clocked the scam from the word go.

I think what Bridget must have meant was that Madeleine was the little girl her parents were supposed to be looking after. But neglected to. And presumable what she meant is: "my heart sank for Madeleine."

Yes, poor little Madeleine certainly pulled the short straw in terms of her parents. Unfortunately, there are some things in life you cannot chose.

by worriedmum 15.05.14 15:29

Is there any way of telling if the 'eyeshadow' is part of the original photo or whether it was added afterwards on to the existing image?

by HelenMeg 23.05.14 12:35

What continues to amaze me is the photo they put forward to be used in the search for Madeleine from the beginning. She had changed so much from when that photo was taken. She was no longer a toddler with the big-eyed babyish face.
Obviously it wasn't a case of the girl needing to be found so it didnt matter too much but there must have been a significant reason as to why they did not use or did not have an up to date photo to use for the campaign.

I notice that in later photos of her she always has these puffiness under her eyes. Is that genetic or hereditary as I dont see it in many other children. Does it indicate sedation used? I dont know. Just wondering whether this may be a reason they chose to put forward a very old photo of her.
One thing I m certain of is that there was a strategic reason for using the photo that they chose to use. I think
a possible reason is that they wanted to use a photo that had very little resemblance to how she looked at the time of 'disappearance' - but why?
is it to do with a p word?

by Justformaddie 23.05.14 16:44

Do I see a coloboma in her other eye or am I looking too closely at it?

Log in for more topics