Re: Photographs revisited - questions

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 16:53

FH wrote:
In my opinion the parents are guilty , but of what I'm not sure. Maybe neglect and covering up an accident, maybe sedation, maybe much, much worse. I just can't make as big a leap of imagination as some people can, over what seem fairly normal pictures of a little girl, doing what little girls do.

Totally agree with you FH, this a rare opinion on this forum. Being a father of two children who were little only a short while ago, I have lots of photographs that if posted here would be 'absolute proof' that they had been abused, or that they were terminally ill, or that they didn't exist at all.

by **tigger** 12.05.14 17:00

Andrew77R wrote:
tigger wrote:The above photo illustrates exactly what I mean about the eyes: apart from the clown make up - thanks for that.

If you enlarge the eyes you can seen the pale inner rim of the lower eyelid, this is often completely black in Maddie's photos.
This girl has dark lashes, yet the rim of the eyelid is clearl to see.

To add: I'm sure about the wig for a number of reasons and curiosly they're not 'bad' reasons at all. I think it was to do with her health. For the moment I'll leave this - pure supposition - aside...

As for the use of make up, either on Maddie herself or - more likely - added to the photos, as well as smoothing out the distinctive eyebags, it's imo all part of the same thing: making her look pretty and not necessarily with paedo intentions.
The 'perfect' make up photo is quite another matter though.
Tigger, bit confused. The above photo with the clown make up is not of MBM.
It's just a random from google images, as i wanted to highlight what a 3 year old would surely look like if they raided mum's make up box and got the lippy out.... As KM i believe said.

I know! that's why I said 'this girl' - it is a good example of how dark lashes should look and that the rim of the eyelid should be pale.
Whilst I was editing and adding, poking around with my stylud... Stylus....stylus . About six new posts appeared!

Better hurry.... winkwink

by Guest 12.05.14 17:00

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
FH wrote:
In my opinion the parents are guilty , but of what I'm not sure. Maybe neglect and covering up an accident, maybe sedation, maybe much, much worse. I just can't make as big a leap of imagination as some people can, over what seem fairly normal pictures of a little girl, doing what little girls do.

Totally agree with you FH, this a rare opinion on this forum. Being a father of two children who were little only a short while ago, I have lots of photographs that if posted here would be 'absolute proof' that they had been abused, or that they were terminally ill, or that they didn't exist at all.

...finally we don´t know!!!!

by Guest 12.05.14 17:09

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

"A haunting new picture of Madeleine McCann has been released – showing her after she raided a make-up box."

by Guest 12.05.14 17:16

Helene1 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"A haunting new picture of Madeleine McCann has been released – showing her after she raided a make-up box."

'After she raided a make up box'.....

Yes of course she did. Christ almighty.

by Guest 12.05.14 17:21

Helene1 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"A haunting new picture of Madeleine McCann has been released – showing her after she raided a make-up box."

Gerry says five-year-old twins Sean and Amelie still ask after their sister.
He said: “They still don’t understand why somebody took her. When they become aware of this, I think they’ll want to know where we were and we will have to explain we were having dinner in the restaurant next door.”

Next door?

by Guest 12.05.14 17:23

"Haunting" is certainly an appropriate word to use, bearing in mind the possible implications of this awful photo.

by Guest 12.05.14 17:24

None other than the parents brought "pedophiles" on the subject - then nobody should be surprised if certain things/pictures seem strange!

...maybe it`s all innocent?????

I would have never ever thought about Pedos, if my little child would have been missing!

I would have been afraid that she felt in the pool, wandered off...whatever...

...but maybe it`s all innocent?????

by Guest 12.05.14 17:26

Off topic but the MBM make up pic. If you double click on the same one on google images it links it to this article from 2011.

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

Bit of it snipped:

Mr Pilditch was asked about his story which claimed a priest in Praia da Luz would not tell police about what Mrs McCann had said in a confessional. The article included a reference to the priest vowing “to take the secrets of the confessional to the grave”, Mr Jay said.
Lord Justice Leveson, chairman of the inquiry, commented: “All the stuff, for example, about what the priest might have been told, it’s all fluff. There’s nothing to it.”
Mr Pilditch replied: “It’s all the things that were happening at the time, but if you look at things now, knowing what we know in the public domain, it’s a very different picture.”

Lord 'Its all fluff' Justice Leveson!!!!

by j.rob 12.05.14 17:52

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:The three most inappropriate photos are in the official video issued by the McCanns for the 3rd anniversary in 2010 so there is no doubt that they knew of them being published; an in-joke on their part I think.

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

This is what makes the whole thing so extraordinarily horrible. When you look at GM smirking in interviews. Then you consider that Madeleine's parents considered these photos to be appropriate. Then consider how GM laughed his head off at the press conference where the 'age-progressed' photo of Madeleine was released. I suppose by this time he realized that there had been criticism of those photos so was not able to produce a Lolita-style shot; in my opinion.

by sar 12.05.14 18:14

look at the level of the ears, what position would you need to be in to get them there?

by Guest 12.05.14 18:19

Helene1 wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:...
There is a big difference from 'playing' with make up to somebody else carefully applying it, forcefully posing for the camera and then taking close up photographs.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
...if girls of this age are "playing" with make up...they look like clowns!!!! The make up would be everywhere in the face!!!!
The eyeshadow is applied carefully - where it is supposed to be - IMO!
Therefore the circumstances under this photo has been taken must have been "strange"!!
...and she doesn´t look happy - playing with make up is normally great fun for girls!

It looks to me as though someone is pulling her hair at the back to make her look up in this way. She has been crying and not looking at all like a princess desperate to show off her dressing up. The pose is forced, whatever the circumstances.

by Guest 12.05.14 18:21

sar wrote:look at the level of the ears, what position would you need to be in to get them there?

You would clearly have to tilt your head back as far as it would humanly be possible to do so.

The question is why though. Why was she made to do that.

by Shhh 12.05.14 18:22

tigger wrote:

In this still from a set of Christmas photographs - Christmas 2005 I'd think - it seems quite clear to me that she's wearing a wig.

In this photograph - especially seems to me she is wearing another wig which doesn't fit as well. Imo the wig slipped in the one with the profile, and in the other photo the size of her head can only be explained this way. Otherwise she'd have had hydrocephalus or a similar defect, which I don't believe is the case at all. A wig explain a lot of the problems in various photographs, the extreme neatness of her hair for one.

Probably taken in a playground and guessing here as to the year and time, can't have been too cold judging by the clothes so May/June 2006?

I'm hoping this link works ok

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

Never seen this pic before until yesterday. Wonky & very short hair

by j.rob 12.05.14 18:24

canada12 wrote:
FH wrote:
This thread is about the ice cream photo and it is a really poor quality photo, at least on my display and I don't think it "glaringly obvious" that the hand is photo shopped any more than I can tell it is eyeliner and I wasn't asking for your help to see it. I was just expressing my opinion about this photo. You think the hand is photo shopped. I think the quality is so poor and grainy and there is so much colour bleed everywhere that I can't tell. To me it looks like poor quality photo, maybe taken on a phone of a cheeky wee girl enjoying an ice cream someone is holding for her. I'm afraid I can't read any more into it than that. I don't see the subliminal messages you see.

Here is the photo in question:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
You can clearly see that there's no way the arm connects to the elbow at all. The elbow would be well below where the arm is located on the horizontal plane.

Yes, well observed. Unfortunately ice cream does hold certain connotations and there is something inappropriately provocative about this photo. The make-up photo is shocking - she looks miserable and maybe even a bit 'out of it'. The photo with the scarf is also disturbing. As others have noted, it is a 'little woman' pose. She also looks as though she has make-up on. And I think what looks like a smile is more like a grimace. I actually think she looks scared and she is clutching the scarf very tightly to her in what looks like a self-protective gesture.The photo of her with her head thrown back is also inappropriate and 'staged'.

Isn't there also a photo of Madeleine with the twins and cousins taken on a holiday prior to May 2007 in which she is holding an ice-cream and, again, some posters have suggested that there is something strange about the photo - as though her hand is not really holding the ice cream? Or something.

And I can't help remembering from that awful 'Madeleine was Here' series when Amelie is wearing the Snow White outfit, that there is a sequence involving the twins eating ice cream which is shot in a way that I found deeply disturbing.

by FH 12.05.14 18:27

1soapy wrote:FH (quoting KM?)

"...we just watched over them carefully. As all parents should."

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

No FH quoting FH.

The difference being, I took 3 small children on holiday abroad many times. 2, or 3 times on my own and I brought all 3 back every time, because unlike KM I did watch mine, like a hawk.

I know my perspective on the photos is not appreciated by a lot of people on here, but I look at the photos objectively and think about what photos of my lot looked like at that age and I don't see a lot of differences. Or I don't see what other people see. Not enough to start lynching anyone.

I suspect a few people posting do not have children and do not have images to compare against. So they maybe don't appreciate how much the images of children vary from one picture to another.

All I'm saying is I have perfectly innocent pictures that this forum would probably dissect endlessly, then want to send me to prison for because a child has a bruise, high heels and make up on, or an ice cream dribbling all down them.

by Shhh 12.05.14 18:56

View this, it's very short, shows the make up & ice cream pics in reverse. The makeup one takes on a different facial expression

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

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 19:31

In the ice-cream photo, the distance of the fingers from knuckle to mid-finger is about twice the length of Maddy's fingers on her right hand - it's clearly the hand of an adult or much larger child, holding the ice-cream for her.

by 1soapy 12.05.14 19:37

Sorry FH for not reading the thread properly before posting.

I am also of your view, that there is too much looked into many things (though I am all for looking at some tiny things that could mean something big or relevant). I do get a sense that, (apart from many who keep things on the straight and narrow), some take a conspiratory/exaggerated speculation view. 'X's eyes are too close together for my liking, therefore I'll over-analyse everything because of the eyes'. It isn't particularly harmful (other than giving the site a bad name sometimes and playing into the hands of others or even confusing a matter, having so many angles), more, just a time-wasting exercise, but on people's free time, which is not so bad - (not like if SY/the PJ were doing so).

I'm not going to condemn those though. Sometimes speculation or raising the matter of coincidences or links between people can bring new thoughts and ideas or even new lines of enquiry which could make or break a case. I wonder how many points on here will, in hindsight, be seen as excellent points and how many will be embarrassed and how many will just have covered all bases and how many points will have been missed?

'I have frequently found myself reading a post along the lines of, 'what parent would ever...' or 'only a guilty person would...' and thought; 'well I have done, several times' or 'I do that sometimes'.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 12.05.14 19:43

FH wrote:
No FH quoting FH.

The difference being, I took 3 small children on holiday abroad many times. 2, or 3 times on my own and I brought all 3 back every time, because unlike KM I did watch mine, like a hawk.

I know my perspective on the photos is not appreciated by a lot of people on here, but I look at the photos objectively and think about what photos of my lot looked like at that age and I don't see a lot of differences. Or I don't see what other people see. Not enough to start lynching anyone.

I suspect a few people posting do not have children and do not have images to compare against. So they maybe don't appreciate how much the images of children vary from one picture to another.

All I'm saying is I have perfectly innocent pictures that this forum would probably dissect endlessly, then want to send me to prison for because a child has a bruise, high heels and make up on, or an ice cream dribbling all down them.

As a child I had a little red peddle-car, and you should have seen the bruises I got on my shin-bones! People would be calling in social services these days... :)

by Liz Eagles 12.05.14 20:15

I usually steer clear of the photograph topics as I have absolutely no idea of photography.

What I'd like to contribute is for me it's the choice of photographs the McCanns chose to release that I find puzzling.

People on the forum say they have hundreds of photographs of their children so it's fair to say the McCanns had hundreds of photographs of Madeleine.

The McCanns screamed 'abduction' and possible abduction by a paedophile was not only introduced but has remained.

The McCanns have had an enormous amount of the best advice money can buy. Kate McCann couldn't believe how many children go missing, how many bad people there are out there and took great pains to explain this when she dedicated herself full-time to the 'search'. Kate McCann is probably more clued up on the behaviour of evil paedophiles in her research and information from private investigations than most people I should think.

I would have expected this heightened level of awareness of the evil folk out there to have had great influence on which photographs were selected for release.

The photograph of Madeleine wearing make-up will always remain a mystery to me. The McCanns want to promote awareness of Madeleine. What was to be achieved by this photograph?

Add to this the photographs depicting a coloboma which has been demoted into a 'fleck' I can only think the McCanns either had very bad advice or chose not to take good advice.

Madeleine's birthday is today. What a shame for this neglected and exploited child.

I feel very sad writing this.

by Gillyspot 12.05.14 20:21

aquila I couldn't have put it better myself roses

by **tigger** 12.05.14 20:35

Just for the record:

I do not believe Maddie was abused - there is the Gaspar statement which points to GM and DP but they'd be beyond stupid to abuse their own children.

I do believe (her fear of pain) that this was never a healthy child and that is one of the reasons photographs are altered.

I do believe she wore a wig which is likely to have been during and after treatment.
The length of hair in photos taken within a few months of each other is then explained. It was such an issue that ROB mentions it in his rog, trying to explain the different lengths of hair.
David Payne mentions her hair in his rog. why? Nobody asked about it, it's obviously sensitive.

I do believe that she had an accident, most likely through the fault of her parents and that her fragile state of health contributed to a fatal outcome.

I do believe the baby photos are not of Maddie, Kate looks far too young in all of them. The baby looks very healthy. Compare that to the picture of Maddie by the tulips at 11 months old, looking not at all well.

The three photographs which imo can be labelled as paedo candy all come from the Jon Corner video. There are a few questionable others but those are more that she looks older. E.g. The crimped hair photo. The shawl photo.

A number of photographs have imo had Maddie's head pasted simply because there were so few pictures of 'family' life.
E.g Donegal.
In other photographs such as the one posted earlier, the girl in the family group simply isn't Maddie.

For the above reasons I analyse the photos and her appearance. In most I see an insecure little girl who just doesn't look well.
Her health records have never been released. One may wonder why? Would a lot of things suddenly become clear?

by Guest 12.05.14 20:42

Tigger, do you think then that the hair found in the car (alluded to by GA) was Maddie's or from a wig?

by canada12 12.05.14 20:44

I agree with you Aquila.

But let me add this... I too believe that the McCanns wanted to promote awareness of Madeleine. But in what context? On the surface and for the general public, they were publicising a missing child.

I'll be careful how I phrase this next bit, as I don't want to say anything libellous. Underneath the surface, is it possible they were publicising a missing child who may have been known in paedophile circles, perhaps not by name but by photograph? And their choice of photos may have been photos that they knew were already in circulation in those circles? And by publicising these particular photos, might they have been issuing a warning to those individuals - get these pictures of Madeleine OFF your computers?

Sorry if this offends anyone, but it was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the questionable pictures.

Again, this is pure speculation on my part, and doesn't point to the guilt or innocence of anyone in this case.

Log in for more topics