Re: Most pictures taken on same day

by Guest 10.02.14 21:40

At the start there were IIRC big rewards. The McCs just never published or draw attention to them ...

by ultimaThule 11.02.14 0:07

Here's Auntie Phil's opinion of anyone whose information may have led to them being in line for a reward:

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

by canada12 11.02.14 1:54

Praia wrote:
Madeleine, on so many pic's, has her hand to her head / face. Was she wearing a hair piece that caused discomfort or that she was very conscious of?

I think she was told to pose that way by the person taking the picture. In many photos it's obviously a pose. It's not a natural placement of the hand. Same with the first photo they circulated when she was missing, where she has her finger hooked into the neckline of her top. Not natural. Posed. Same with the red dress picture where she's holding up the rings in one hand and holding the Dr Who sonic screwdriver in the other. Posed. And the blue football t-shirt photo, hand up as if to brush the hair away from her face. Posed.

by **tigger** 11.02.14 6:09

Casey5 wrote:There's obviously "poor" and then there's "poor" . Anyone who lives in a 4 bedroomed, detached house in a well-to-do area is definitely not poor. Two excellent salaries coming in, Gerry with his private practice add-on and cheap childcare in the shape of relatives. We should all be so lucky.
I notice that whatever the state of the fund at any given time, there's never any mention of the McCanns' downgrading and buying a cheaper property. Why not? Have they ever put any money of their own into the fund or used their own money on journeys and hotel costs, I think if they had we'd have all heard about it?
And we never hear them mention a reward for information that the family have put up with their own money, again why don't they have a family whip round and put up a reward?
They appear to love bringing the money in to the fund, but they also like hanging onto their own. Poor Madeleine.

Someone posted (sorry recently but don't know where) that it looks as if Maddie spent most of her time with relatives and that would explain why Kate said she missed her most at family gatherings - which would explain a lot.
Dr. Roberts in one of his early articles noted they spoke about their children as 'two plus one'.

A photo opportunity lost however always puzzled me. Not a single photo of Maddie's room. No descriptions either.
Not in the book unless I've missed it?

by Guest 11.02.14 8:32

tigger wrote:
A photo opportunity lost however always puzzled me. Not a single photo of Maddie's room. No descriptions either.
Not in the book unless I've missed it?

I haven't seen any photos nor read any descriptions, but I have a very vivid mental image of Madeleine's bedroom - the perfect room for their much loved and missed pink princess - there's the snooker table, the golf clubs propped up in the corner next to the tennis racquets while the walls are adorned with K&Gs' sporting medals, trophies & certificates alongside framed photos of the fragrant pair posing with celebrities.

by Twiggycooper 11.02.14 10:44

I do not know, if this has been posted already, but in this picture it looks as if Madeleine has a plaster next to her nose fixing a canulae or something similar, it is quite grainy: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by anneboleyn 11.02.14 12:30

Madeleine's neck looks similar to the way it does in the "pink shoe" picture. A bit like she's wearing a turtleneck as mentioned before.

by **tigger** 11.02.14 13:53

anneboleyn wrote:Madeleine's neck looks similar to the way it does in the "pink shoe" picture. A bit like she's wearing a turtleneck as mentioned before.

Is there any kind of contraption - could be like a plastic neckband to hold someting else in place?

Just wild surmise on my part. Both photographs seen to have that pinkish band in the neck.

by ultimaThule 16.02.14 8:24

It looks as if she's wearing a narrow version of an infant neck roll - one of those soft 'braces' designed for extra support when travelling. I don't know if they are available in flesh colour but it wouldn't be too difficult to make one.

I've come late to the notion that Madeleine was not a well child, but I've long suspected Kate may be a high-functioning alcoholic and it seems to me that there are signs of foetal alcohol syndrome in the child's appearance such as micrognathia (underdeveloped chin), thin upper lip, indistinct philtrum, flat midface and short nose etc. Apart from learning difficulties and associated behavioural problems such as hyperactivity, these children can also have numerous health problems including issues with bones and joints.

The 'iconic' photo shows a child with unusually large eyes and a very small chin; while I suspect this has been photoshopped to enlarge the eyes in order to draw attention to the colomba, Madeleine appears to have small eyes which is another indication of FAS and may account for the fact that she always appears to be wearing eye makeup. In addition, her height as given to the PJ was 90cm which, as I've remarked before, is worryingly low for a child of her age but which would be accounted for if she suffered from FAS.

Fwiw the photo of the child on the see-saw looks as if she may have Down's syndrome, the physical features of which are ones that it's often said the infant grows into rather than being immediately apparent at birth.

The two doctors 'reports' as sent to the PJ are not worth the paper they were written on, but this not uncommon when the medical fraternity are called on to comment on one, or in this case two, of their own and it's to be hoped SY have obtained birth records for Madeleine and the twins and have investigated what, if any, hospital treatment they've received.

by anneboleyn 17.02.14 10:45

I've been looking through a lot of pictures of Madeleine and at the risk of sounding obsessive about the strange looking ring on her neck there is a very good picture where she is holding a blue scarf (with a weird looking hand!) that shows the ring very clearly. Also there is a picture of Madeleine as a real cutie baby wearing a little white hat where the ring is clear.

Then there is the Snow White dress picture where she is biting down in her bottom lip and looking up where her neck looks completely well just strange. I've wondered before if Madeleine has had a tracheotomy and wil do some more reading on that subject.

Im using a tablet and am unable to post the pictures I'm referring to.

Regarding her clothes in general I agree with other posters and think she looks scruffy and unkempt. Like a ragbag child. I was not rolling in money when my daughter was little but still managed to dress her neatly in pretty clothes.

I remember places like Tesco and Asda sold 2 pack dresses for around 2.50-3.00 British pounds. One would be patterned and one would be plain and would do for a few months before being passed in good condition to my younger niece. Likewise with packs of t-shirts and shorts. I would buy some more expensive items too and match them with the cheaper stuff.

Btw I'm glad to have found this forum where so many people think the same as I do.

by ultimaThule 17.02.14 11:39

Anne - you will find kindred spirits here but try not to lose your head just yet (pun intended) because, as with everything McCann, some may not be what they seem sarcastic

< please ignore the meaning of this emoticon - I chose it because it's my favourite of the 'laughing' ones and always makes me smile when I see it.

A tracheotomy leaves a permanent noticeable scar. If Madeleine was subjected to this procedure the tell tale sign would require airbrushing to make it disappear, but this would be unlikely to present a problem to whoever has been playing with a photoshopping kit.

To my mind, the necks of all three children in the photo below look a tad strange and the teeth of the child who is allegedly Madeleine, but who looks remarkably similar to the Paynes' eldest daughter, gives the lie to the 'last photo' being taken in May 2007.

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

I felt quite shocked when I saw what the child in the playground (which I don't believe is in the UK) photos is wearing. If the clothes had had an iron run over them and if the sleeves of the top and bottoms of the trousers had been neatly rolled/turned up, they might not look quite so ill-fitting and as if they'd come out of a ragbag, but the overall impression given is that no-one cared about that child sufficiently to make her look presentable in public.

by Guest 17.02.14 11:53

ultimateThule: I think that you mean Jane Tanner's daughter as resembling Madeleine as the Payne daughter has short dark hair or she did in 2007 anyway.

by anneboleyn 17.02.14 12:25

Thanks for the welcome ultima Thule. Great pun btw big grin

. Anne Boleyn is one of my all time favourite historical people.

Yes I can see from reading this forum and other blogs/forums that all is not as it seems. I do feel that I'm in parallel universe sometimes with the twists and turns in this case. I'll carry on reading and hope that justice is done eventually.

by **tigger** 17.02.14 12:50

ultimaThule wrote: Anne - you will find kindred spirits here but try not to lose your head just yet (pun intended) because, as with everything McCann, some may not be what they seem < please ignore the meaning of this emoticon - I chose it because it's my favourite of the 'laughing' ones and always makes me smile when I see it.

A tracheotomy leaves a permanent noticeable scar. If Madeleine was subjected to this procedure the tell tale sign would require airbrushing to make it disappear, but this would be unlikely to present a problem to whoever has been playing with a photoshopping kit.

To my mind, the necks of all three children in the photo below look a tad strange and the teeth of the child who is allegedly Madeleine, but who looks remarkably similar to the Paynes' eldest daughter, gives the lie to the 'last photo' being taken in May 2007.

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

I felt quite shocked when I saw what the child in the playground (which I don't believe is in the UK) photos is wearing. If the clothes had had an iron run over them and if the sleeves of the top and bottoms of the trousers had been neatly rolled/turned up, they might not look quite so ill-fitting and as if they'd come out of a ragbag, but the overall impression given is that no-one cared about that child sufficiently to make her look presentable in public.

Why is there no shadow on the right behind Maddie? Non participation again, as in so many photos, Amelie is looking at Sean, Sean is looking up towards the centre, Maddie is the only one looking at the photographer.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 17.02.14 13:13

tigger wrote:
Why is there no shadow on the right behind Maddie? Non participation again, as in so many photos, Amelie is looking at Sean, Sean is looking up towards the centre, Maddie is the only one looking at the photographer.

The light source is somewhat to the left, above and to the rear of the camera position. Amelie is farther away from the rear wall than Madeleine, which is why you can see a small shadow to the right of Amelie and no shadow behind Madeleine. Sean's shadow is against a surface which is perpendicular to the rear wall, so that shadow is most clearly offset. Madeleine's shadow is not noticeable because she is closest to the rear wall.

Also, notice that Amelie's shadow is offset quite a bit downwards from her actual silhouette. Look at the height difference between her bottom lip and its shadow. Now look at Madeleine's hair. Madeleine's silhouette extends down and to the right (from the camera's perspective) thanks to her hair, so it will completely hide the shadow which will be further down on the wall.

by **tigger** 17.02.14 13:58

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
tigger wrote:
Why is there no shadow on the right behind Maddie? Non participation again, as in so many photos, Amelie is looking at Sean, Sean is looking up towards the centre, Maddie is the only one looking at the photographer.

The light source is somewhat to the left, above and to the rear of the camera position. Amelie is farther away from the rear wall than Madeleine, which is why you can see a small shadow to the right of Amelie and no shadow behind Madeleine. Sean's shadow is against a surface which is perpendicular to the rear wall, so that shadow is most clearly offset. Madeleine's shadow is not noticeable because she is closest to the rear wall.

Also, notice that Amelie's shadow is offset quite a bit downwards from her actual silhouette. Look at the height difference between her bottom lip and its shadow. Now look at Madeleine's hair. Madeleine's silhouette extends down and to the right (from the camera's perspective) thanks to her hair, so it will completely hide the shadow which will be further down on the wall.

Thank you. It was just that Amelie's eyelash shadow seems to be in the rightplace for her to be very close to the wall. So I read it as Amelie being closer to the wall than she is. Sean's shadow fits fine, you can see it just behind his ear.
We often disagree - but you are probably right. The probably is on account of all things McCann, not you. winkwink

Log in for more topics