Madeleine's height

by mexx 06.03.12 21:08

In the PJ files Madeleine's declared height is 90 centimetres, which is way below the World Health Organisation's average and minimum for a 4-year-old. In fact, 90 centimetres is the average height of a 2 1/2-year-old...

Either her parents declared the wrong height or she may have had a medical condition characterised by failure to thrive.

Does she seem much smaller than peers such as Tanner and O'Brien's daughter? I'm sure I have seen photographs but don't remember that detail.

by Genbug 06.03.12 22:08

Not sure there are photos of them together Mexx? We see her with the Payne child on the plane steps and she appears to be quite a bit taller than her. The Payne child was two and eight months at the time.

I don't believe Madeleine was only 90cm tall. We see a video of her, I think it is Christmas 2006, where she is standing beside a dining table and it reaches the middle of her chest. An average dining table is 78cm high. That leaves just 12 cm for her upper body(that's less than five inches for those that don't do metric!).

Checked my children's welfare books this morning. I have heights for both of them in the month before their third birthdays. The boy, who was and still is, small for his age, was 91cm, the girl who is considered "average" was 98cm. And they were a whole year younger than Madeleine at those heights!

by mexx 06.03.12 22:30

Just checked over at McCann files and height was indeed given as 90 cms (though I can't find the original posters to see if that was mentioned in them and I can't remember).

Why give the wrong height? It is way too short even for small child. My daughter is 3 1/2, and only just in "normal" range at 95 cms.

by Gillyspot 07.03.12 6:41

mexx wrote:Just checked over at McCann files and height was indeed given as 90 cms (though I can't find the original posters to see if that was mentioned in them and I can't remember).

Why give the wrong height? It is way too short even for small child. My daughter is 3 1/2, and only just in "normal" range at 95 cms.

The smaller height given would fit with the photos that the McCann couple initially released. Both UK & PT first photos were of Madeleine much younger than in PDL. As you say WHY? Only the McCann couple & their friends can answer these questions and I can't see that happening anytime soon.

by **tigger** 07.03.12 7:27

If a 2.5 to 3 yr old was standing in for her, that would explain it. That' is also why she is described as 'petite' - small and compact - by no stretch of the imagination would you describe tennis girl like that.

by **PeterMac** 07.03.12 7:36

We did this a long time ago with growth charts for normal and also for "Turners" syndrome children.
There was the picture of her emerging from the plastic castle, which allowed comparison.
I don't remember what the thread was called, so can't search for it.
Admin may be able to assist.

by Gillyspot 07.03.12 7:44

Hi Petermac

It is here

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

Can't insert it though

by **PeterMac** 07.03.12 7:49

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

by **tigger** 07.03.12 8:22

Sorry to be nitpicking, but both feet are outside the door, so the threshold height should be added. About 2 "? Which makes it 42" about 106 cm.
I still think it argues for a younger sub.
If Maddie was seen around by the staff and other holiday makers, most mothers would realize that she can't have been 90 cm.
Even in the playground photos you would not describe her as 'petite' - I think that was DP.
Tennis girl I'd have said 'lanky'. If she took after Kate, that makes a lot of sense.

by Genbug 07.03.12 8:43

tigger wrote:Sorry to be nitpicking, but both feet are outside the door, so the threshold height should be added. About 2 "? Which makes it 42" about 106 cm.
I still think it argues for a younger sub.
If Maddie was seen around by the staff and other holiday makers, most mothers would realize that she can't have been 90 cm.
Even in the playground photos you would not describe her as 'petite' - I think that was DP.
Tennis girl I'd have said 'lanky'. If she took after Kate, that makes a lot of sense.

Morning Tigger, the thing that bothers me about there being a sub is that surely after she went missing, one of the nannies or people that saw her that week, would look at the photos released and say "that's not the girl we knew as Madeleine"?

by russiandoll 07.03.12 10:19

Genbug wrote:
tigger wrote:Sorry to be nitpicking, but both feet are outside the door, so the threshold height should be added. About 2 "? Which makes it 42" about 106 cm.
I still think it argues for a younger sub.
If Maddie was seen around by the staff and other holiday makers, most mothers would realize that she can't have been 90 cm.
Even in the playground photos you would not describe her as 'petite' - I think that was DP.
Tennis girl I'd have said 'lanky'. If she took after Kate, that makes a lot of sense.

Morning Tigger, the thing that bothers me about there being a sub is that surely after she went missing, one of the nannies or people that saw her that week, would look at the photos released and say "that's not the girl we knew as Madeleine"?

that would not be an issue if the real Maddie never attended creche. is that a plausible theory?

by **tigger** 07.03.12 10:20

Genbug wrote:
tigger wrote:Sorry to be nitpicking, but both feet are outside the door, so the threshold height should be added. About 2 "? Which makes it 42" about 106 cm.
I still think it argues for a younger sub.
If Maddie was seen around by the staff and other holiday makers, most mothers would realize that she can't have been 90 cm.
Even in the playground photos you would not describe her as 'petite' - I think that was DP.
Tennis girl I'd have said 'lanky'. If she took after Kate, that makes a lot of sense.

Morning Tigger, the thing that bothers me about there being a sub is that surely after she went missing, one of the nannies or people that saw her that week, would look at the photos released and say "that's not the girl we knew as Madeleine"?

The best known picture didn't look like her at all, perhaps like a sub is there was one. Toddlers tend to look very alike, same little noses, hair colour and style the most distinguishing features on the whole. The other one was a very early one too (the photocopied sheet of 3/5). There she was about two.
You don't see them face to face very much either, unless you're actually interacting with them. Then I find that most people aren't very observant.
I'm sure that the tennis girl and the pool photo threw up some questions marks with people who'd been there, but they were published by the parents who said this was Maddie - who would argue? Idiots like us!

by Genbug 07.03.12 16:49

I get your points, but remain unconvinced, even though I find several of the photos suspicious, especially those of Madeleine with the twins, where she looks older when they were younger than she does when they are older!

I personally think Madeleine (or at least the pictures of the girl we are told is Madeleine) is quite distinctive looking with her dimples and quite pronounced bags under her eyes. Not pretty in my opinion, but distinctive.

I agree that the best known picture of her doesn't resemble the others in the slightest. But the nannies and parents delivering their children must surely have since seen the other published pictures and known that they didn't look like the child in the creche that they knew as Madeleine? I understand what you are saying, just can't quite get my head around the reality of it. Surely there would always be the risk of someone looking at the published photos and saying "that's not the girl in the creche that we called Madeleine...?"

by rainbow-fairy 07.03.12 17:45

Genbug wrote:I get your points, but remain unconvinced, even though I find several of the photos suspicious, especially those of Madeleine with the twins, where she looks older when they were younger than she does when they are older!

I personally think Madeleine (or at least the pictures of the girl we are told is Madeleine) is quite distinctive looking with her dimples and quite pronounced bags under her eyes. Not pretty in my opinion, but distinctive.

I agree that the best known picture of her doesn't resemble the others in the slightest. But the nannies and parents delivering their children must surely have since seen the other published pictures and known that they didn't look like the child in the creche that they knew as Madeleine? I understand what you are saying, just can't quite get my head around the reality of it. Surely there would always be the risk of someone looking at the published photos and saying "that's not the girl in the creche that we called Madeleine...?"

Genbug I perfectly understand your confusion, as I too share it. I can say with absolute honesty I have NO clear picture of 'Madeleine McCann' in my head at all. If I was to say the closest, I envisage the 'blue eyeshadow pic'. Mainly, because the look in that girls eyes haunts me... NO WAY a girl 'playing make-up' - there is no playfulness in those eyes. I'd go as far as to say no spark of life in them whatsoever.
Anyway, I think it is all 'part of the plan' - the confusion, that is. Remember what Gerry said??? We've been shown countless photo's of blonde girls, all purporting to be Maddie McCann but they are quite plainly not the same child. Why???
It is true what you say about the risk of somebody saying "That is not Maddie" BUT does it matter if they do? Who, would take them seriously? Its no mistake that those of us questioning the 'official story' are labelled conspiracy theorists, nut jobs and sicko's... It is job done! Who in their right mind would speak publicly now? Questioning the Sainted McCanns? Its just not done. Look at the names we posters and this site gets called. And we are (fairly) anonymous...
I think it is important to remember two additional things with regards the nannies and Madeleine:
1)The nannies who cared for Maddie were quickly shipped out of PdL;

2)There is a significant portion of the PJ files withheld. We cannot be sure that one or more of the nannies COULD have spoken out, in a statement or 'off-record'... That statement could be sitting in the files as we speak...

by Genbug 07.03.12 18:08

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Genbug wrote:I get your points, but remain unconvinced, even though I find several of the photos suspicious, especially those of Madeleine with the twins, where she looks older when they were younger than she does when they are older!

I personally think Madeleine (or at least the pictures of the girl we are told is Madeleine) is quite distinctive looking with her dimples and quite pronounced bags under her eyes. Not pretty in my opinion, but distinctive.

I agree that the best known picture of her doesn't resemble the others in the slightest. But the nannies and parents delivering their children must surely have since seen the other published pictures and known that they didn't look like the child in the creche that they knew as Madeleine? I understand what you are saying, just can't quite get my head around the reality of it. Surely there would always be the risk of someone looking at the published photos and saying "that's not the girl in the creche that we called Madeleine...?"
Genbug I perfectly understand your confusion, as I too share it. I can say with absolute honesty I have NO clear picture of 'Madeleine McCann' in my head at all. If I was to say the closest, I envisage the 'blue eyeshadow pic'. Mainly, because the look in that girls eyes haunts me... NO WAY a girl 'playing make-up' - there is no playfulness in those eyes. I'd go as far as to say no spark of life in them whatsoever.
Anyway, I think it is all 'part of the plan' - the confusion, that is. Remember what Gerry said??? We've been shown countless photo's of blonde girls, all purporting to be Maddie McCann but they are quite plainly not the same child. Why???
It is true what you say about the risk of somebody saying "That is not Maddie" BUT does it matter if they do? Who, would take them seriously? Its no mistake that those of us questioning the 'official story' are labelled conspiracy theorists, nut jobs and sicko's... It is job done! Who in their right mind would speak publicly now? Questioning the Sainted McCanns? Its just not done. Look at the names we posters and this site gets called. And we are (fairly) anonymous...
I think it is important to remember two additional things with regards the nannies and Madeleine:
1)The nannies who cared for Maddie were quickly shipped out of PdL;

2)There is a significant portion of the PJ files withheld. We cannot be sure that one or more of the nannies COULD have spoken out, in a statement or 'off-record'... That statement could be sitting in the files as we speak...

Rainbow-fairy, I hate that picture and can't even begin to imagine why they would publish it. I agree, that wasn't a three year old playing with Mummy's makeup. My grandaughter is just coming up to the age that Madeleine was when she disappeared. Last week she found her Mummy's makeup and headed straight for the lipstick (as both of my girls did when playing makeup). The result was a horrible mess around her mouth, not helped by her brother who filled in the bits she missed with red felt tipped pen!! The photograph we have shows her screaming with laughter with a twinkle in her eyes. A "normal" photo of a little girl playing with Mummy's makeup. Poor Madeleine :-(

by rainbow-fairy 07.03.12 18:21

Genbug wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
Genbug wrote:I get your points, but remain unconvinced, even though I find several of the photos suspicious, especially those of Madeleine with the twins, where she looks older when they were younger than she does when they are older!

I personally think Madeleine (or at least the pictures of the girl we are told is Madeleine) is quite distinctive looking with her dimples and quite pronounced bags under her eyes. Not pretty in my opinion, but distinctive.

I agree that the best known picture of her doesn't resemble the others in the slightest. But the nannies and parents delivering their children must surely have since seen the other published pictures and known that they didn't look like the child in the creche that they knew as Madeleine? I understand what you are saying, just can't quite get my head around the reality of it. Surely there would always be the risk of someone looking at the published photos and saying "that's not the girl in the creche that we called Madeleine...?"
Genbug I perfectly understand your confusion, as I too share it. I can say with absolute honesty I have NO clear picture of 'Madeleine McCann' in my head at all. If I was to say the closest, I envisage the 'blue eyeshadow pic'. Mainly, because the look in that girls eyes haunts me... NO WAY a girl 'playing make-up' - there is no playfulness in those eyes. I'd go as far as to say no spark of life in them whatsoever.
Anyway, I think it is all 'part of the plan' - the confusion, that is. Remember what Gerry said??? We've been shown countless photo's of blonde girls, all purporting to be Maddie McCann but they are quite plainly not the same child. Why???
It is true what you say about the risk of somebody saying "That is not Maddie" BUT does it matter if they do? Who, would take them seriously? Its no mistake that those of us questioning the 'official story' are labelled conspiracy theorists, nut jobs and sicko's... It is job done! Who in their right mind would speak publicly now? Questioning the Sainted McCanns? Its just not done. Look at the names we posters and this site gets called. And we are (fairly) anonymous...
I think it is important to remember two additional things with regards the nannies and Madeleine:
1)The nannies who cared for Maddie were quickly shipped out of PdL;

2)There is a significant portion of the PJ files withheld. We cannot be sure that one or more of the nannies COULD have spoken out, in a statement or 'off-record'... That statement could be sitting in the files as we speak...

Rainbow-fairy, I hate that picture and can't even begin to imagine why they would publish it. I agree, that wasn't a three year old playing with Mummy's makeup. My grandaughter is just coming up to the age that Madeleine was when she disappeared. Last week she found her Mummy's makeup and headed straight for the lipstick (as both of my girls did when playing makeup). The result was a horrible mess around her mouth, not helped by her brother who filled in the bits she missed with red felt tipped pen!! The photograph we have shows her screaming with laughter with a twinkle in her eyes. A "normal" photo of a little girl playing with Mummy's makeup. Poor Madeleine :-(

Exactly, Genbug. My heart breaks for her Sad

I'm not saying this because we 'know' the outcome for her, but I can't think of ONE picture where you see that 'joyful' zest-for-life look toddlers normally have. She looks massively sad. Come to think of it, all the pictures I've seen of 'Amelie' are the same, but not Sean - he has a 'twinkle'. Maybe the girls were treated differently in some way?

Your picture sounds hilarious! Bless them, I can just imagine the happy mess :)

by TheTruthWillOut 16.04.12 2:45

There is a video of Madeleine and the twins at the foot of the stairs at home that is claimed to be from her "last" Christmas which would be December 2006. I actually think this video is more likely to be December 2005. The twins look to me to be under 1 year old in this video.

Using the first step of the stairs as a guide, I guess she is between 75-80cm tall.

If I'm right then there is no way Madeleine would only grow 10-15cm in 17 months surely?

The earlier suggestion of a "sub" is interesting and disturbing. I suppose if there was a sub who looked like a younger and shorter (90cm) Madeleine and was the only girl the crèche staff ever met.................

Not sure I want believe that though. sad

by **tigger** 16.04.12 6:02

TheTruthWillOut wrote:There is a video of Madeleine and the twins at the foot of the stairs at home that is claimed to be from her "last" Christmas which would be December 2006. I actually think this video is more likely to be December 2005. The twins look to me to be under 1 year old in this video.

Using the first step of the stairs as a guide, I guess she is between 75-80cm tall.

If I'm right then there is no way Madeleine would only grow 10-15cm in 17 months surely?

The earlier suggestion of a "sub" is interesting and disturbing. I suppose if there was a sub who looked like a younger and shorter (90cm) Madeleine and was the only girl the crèche staff ever met.................

Not sure I want believe that though.

Aren't you clever! I did the same with the tennis balls (known diameter) and even without allowing for the angle, came to about 110 - 114 cm.
I think that was taken around april 2007 but possibly not in PdL.

Isn't the lack of interaction with her siblings quite noticeable in all the videos? It's almost as if she's a visitor, she takes not notice of them and they do not interact with her either. Very strange.

by Genbug 16.04.12 10:51

TheTruthWillOut wrote:There is a video of Madeleine and the twins at the foot of the stairs at home that is claimed to be from her "last" Christmas which would be December 2006. I actually think this video is more likely to be December 2005. The twins look to me to be under 1 year old in this video.

Using the first step of the stairs as a guide, I guess she is between 75-80cm tall.

If I'm right then there is no way Madeleine would only grow 10-15cm in 17 months surely?

The earlier suggestion of a "sub" is interesting and disturbing. I suppose if there was a sub who looked like a younger and shorter (90cm) Madeleine and was the only girl the crèche staff ever met.................

Not sure I want believe that though. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I know that video was released for a Christmas appeal, but is it actually meant to be Christmas? That video confuses me. The twins are obviously just babies, hardly any hair and can barely walk, they are using the stairgate to pull themselves up. Madeleine appears to be quite eloquent and looks as if she is about three (which of course she wouldn't be when the twins were that small, she would only be two and a half).

Then there is another video which allegedly IS Christmas. the twins now have a lot more hair and are walking confidently. And yet Madeleine looks a lot younger than she did in the stair video! She still has the chuuby cheeks and a toddler look about her. All very bizarre!

by Anona 16.04.12 13:11

Is Madeleine's height stated on her passport, as adult height is? If so, it should be possible, using a growth chart, to find approximately what height centile she was on at the age when the passport was issued and then project forward to find her expected height at 4 years of age. I think a child's height usually remains on the same centile or thereabouts throughout childhood.

by **tigger** 16.04.12 13:36

Anona wrote:Is Madeleine's height stated on her passport, as adult height is? If so, it should be possible, using a growth chart, to find approximately what height centile she was on at the age when the passport was issued and then project forward to find her expected height at 4 years of age. I think a child's height usually remains on the same centile or thereabouts throughout childhood.

Here is a link to her passport, but there is no description. It should also be on the PJ files right at the beginning.
But I could not find the passports there. I'm almost sure they're here on the very long topic photographs and memories...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
issued 4th aug 2003, that's probably not going to be of any use in calculating height anyway. At 3 months it would be hard to fit into the graph.
Apparently Portugal requires up to date photographs in children's passports.

by TheTruthWillOut 16.04.12 15:32

Genbug wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:There is a video of Madeleine and the twins at the foot of the stairs at home that is claimed to be from her "last" Christmas which would be December 2006. I actually think this video is more likely to be December 2005. The twins look to me to be under 1 year old in this video.

Using the first step of the stairs as a guide, I guess she is between 75-80cm tall.

If I'm right then there is no way Madeleine would only grow 10-15cm in 17 months surely?

The earlier suggestion of a "sub" is interesting and disturbing. I suppose if there was a sub who looked like a younger and shorter (90cm) Madeleine and was the only girl the crèche staff ever met.................

Not sure I want believe that though. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I know that video was released for a Christmas appeal, but is it actually meant to be Christmas? That video confuses me. The twins are obviously just babies, hardly any hair and can barely walk, they are using the stairgate to pull themselves up. Madeleine appears to be quite eloquent and looks as if she is about three (which of course she wouldn't be when the twins were that small, she would only be two and a half).

Then there is another video which allegedly IS Christmas. the twins now have a lot more hair and are walking confidently. And yet Madeleine looks a lot younger than she did in the stair video! She still has the chuuby cheeks and a toddler look about her. All very bizarre!

I agree it is confusing. Looking at the 2008 appeal video as posted on the McCann files, the narrator says Madeleine is excited for Christmas, she is 3 years old, it is 2006 and 5 months later she disappeared.

The biggest problem is the size/appearance of the twins. Do they look like they are 22 months old?

by Genbug 17.04.12 18:20

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Genbug wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:There is a video of Madeleine and the twins at the foot of the stairs at home that is claimed to be from her "last" Christmas which would be December 2006. I actually think this video is more likely to be December 2005. The twins look to me to be under 1 year old in this video.

Using the first step of the stairs as a guide, I guess she is between 75-80cm tall.

If I'm right then there is no way Madeleine would only grow 10-15cm in 17 months surely?

The earlier suggestion of a "sub" is interesting and disturbing. I suppose if there was a sub who looked like a younger and shorter (90cm) Madeleine and was the only girl the crèche staff ever met.................

Not sure I want believe that though. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I know that video was released for a Christmas appeal, but is it actually meant to be Christmas? That video confuses me. The twins are obviously just babies, hardly any hair and can barely walk, they are using the stairgate to pull themselves up. Madeleine appears to be quite eloquent and looks as if she is about three (which of course she wouldn't be when the twins were that small, she would only be two and a half).

Then there is another video which allegedly IS Christmas. the twins now have a lot more hair and are walking confidently. And yet Madeleine looks a lot younger than she did in the stair video! She still has the chuuby cheeks and a toddler look about her. All very bizarre!

I agree it is confusing. Looking at the 2008 appeal video as posted on the McCann files, the narrator says Madeleine is excited for Christmas, she is 3 years old, it is 2006 and 5 months later she disappeared.

The biggest problem is the size/appearance of the twins. Do they look like they are 22 months old?

Absolutely not, they look to be around 12 - 15 months.

by TheTruthWillOut 17.04.12 22:32

Exactly Genbug. And I think a possible reason why this video is said to be from ~Dec 2006 (Though not directly by the McCanns?) is to cover the probable lie that Madeleine was 90cm high?

I think a reason why a lot of the released photos and videos look "dodgy" is because they have to fit the story the McCanns have told..............