The 'make-up photo'

by worriedmum 10.12.13 22:02

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

I was looking through the photographs and memories (1) thread and I saw this posted by Rosa on August 9th 2011.

What video was this image part of?

Is the first one an exact (but flipped) image of the one which has become so familiar?

Does anyone else see an indentation halfway down the neck-to me there is a difference in the colour of the skin above and below this line.

I have seen the documentary filmed at The McCanns' house and the walls do not look the same to me. Was it ever made public where this picture was taken?

The texture of the walls and the metallic -looking fixture remind me of more Mediterranean type buildings. Could the metal thing be something like the clothes airer in the photo of what was maybe the Payne's apartment? Or a lamp?[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Does any one else remember the reason given for the make-up? I seem to remember a 'visiting beautician ' story ?

by Guest 10.12.13 22:29

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

I think you'll find more information here, worried mum.

The "visiting beautician" story may be a forum myth.

by Guest 10.12.13 23:01

The pics are mirrored, in any case.

The blue chair may be a Burgau chair

Please note the ornament in the hair; remember KH explicitly mentioned taking a bead out of het child's hair at a given moment.

Such a bead was reportedly found on the floor of the apartment after the Mecs left it (please, if anyone can find where this is to be found?)

KH tells us this for a purpose: taking the bead out of her daughters hair. And, lo, presto, here is a bead!

by Guest 10.12.13 23:09

The child in the black and white picture looks ill at ease, see her left hand sport of pushing him away

The metallic thing could indeed be the lamp fixture strechted out a little more

by Briohazard 10.12.13 23:16

Can anyone post the pic of Kate and maddie with cuddlecat? There's a strange hand near Kate's ear. And I'm wondering what birthday she received this cat as an early present?

by Guest 11.12.13 9:27

Is it even her? Looks like a much older child (even taking into account the strange circumstances) than any of the "last" photos.

by Curious_Bystander 11.12.13 11:57

Portia wrote:The child in the black and white picture looks ill at ease, see her left hand sport of pushing him away

The metallic thing could indeed be the lamp fixture strechted out a little more

I am 99% sure that it is an extendable rack for laundry, as would be common in warmer climes...

by Tangled Web 11.12.13 12:07

This photo makes me so sad. What on earth was going on in that little girl's life??? And why do the majority of photo's that we are allowed to see seem tampered in some way? Talk about perplexing.

By the way, I agree that this pic looks as though it could've been taken where they were staying.

by Guest 11.12.13 12:14

I still do find this photo appalling and wonder why this one, plus a couple of other "dubious" ones, was used for the viral one-minute-video a couple years ago ... But, what strikes me when looking at it again today, is the colour of her eyes. I know that colour plays tricks in photographs, but weren't supposed to be hazelnut/greenish IIRC? In the picture they dark grey, almost black ... sad

by Guest 11.12.13 13:28

I find this photo unsettling to look at. Is Madeleine lying down? She doesn't look happy to me. Young children wearing necklaces is not a good idea either, in case of accidental strangling or choking on beads.

Apologies for my ignorance but could someone tell me what IIRC means, please.

by Guest 11.12.13 13:32

"IF I RECALL CORRECTLY".

As someone else said earlier, this one doesn't even look like Madeleine - please could someone put it side by side with say the tennis ball photo for comparison?

by Tangled Web 11.12.13 13:38

Ladyinred - IIRC is an abbreviation for if I recall correctly smilie

This photo just isn't 'natural' and looks very 'posed'. I'm sure this has been covered already but it definitely is unsettling, especially when you see the dark eyes and no facial expression.

I know this is veering off topic slightly but sort of on the subject, has anyone else noticed that in the videos of her, the twins are always in the background and she's always being zoomed in on??? When I film my three, I tend to give them all an equal amount of footage (unless they're doing something in particular on their own) because, as a parent, you don't want your children to think you favour one of the other! Just something I picked up on.

by Doug D 11.12.13 14:55

Portia,

‘In the evening her parents gave her a bath, took out her trendy hair bead and washed her hair. Then they tucked her up alongside Sean and Amelie before kissing them all goodnight’

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

Its from the Mail so it must be right!!! (although ‘her parents’ did not give her a bath)

This seems to be first mention of the hair bead (‘last’ photo - elastic?) on 25^th May & was followed by internet questions as to why it was even mentioned and whether it was because the PJ had maybe found it in the room, but there does not seem to be any evidence to this effect.

The good old Mail also says the following regarding the make-up photo:

The photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing-up box – she has a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace and is wearing blue eyeshadow.
It was taken weeks before the fateful family holiday to the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz when Madeleine vanished.

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

by ultimaThule 11.12.13 15:47

'A raid on the dressing up box' possibly, but not without the assistance of an individual who is experienced in the art of applying make-up.

I find the indentation on the right side of the neck somewhat worrying, especially as the corresponding place on the left side of the child's neck is obscured by hair.

As for location, I agree the metal object looks to be part of an extendable drying rack of the type that is commonly found in the Iberian penisula, but this in itself cannot be taken as proof as to where this photo was taken.

by GrizzleyBear 11.12.13 15:56

I questioned on another thread, whether some of these photos might be of Kate when she was a child...

by Daisy 11.12.13 15:57

Thanks for the link Doug D. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This is one of the top rated comments in reply to that article:

Kay, Alcudia. Majorca, 3 years ago

"It doesn't look as if she's 'having fun' to me in that picture."

508 Agreed

151 Disagreed

by Hicks 11.12.13 18:04

The make up photo for me is just one more compelling mystery in this case.
Madeleine's ears are way too low, the nick half way down her neck, the lifeless eyes. The photo as a whole just doesn't make sense yet I can't fathom out why the parents would put this picture out in the public domain knowing that it would be scrutinised.
Could it be that it wasn't actually the parents who released the make up photo?

by Guest 11.12.13 18:11

Hicks wrote:The make up photo for me is just one more compelling mystery in this case.
Madeleine's ears are way too low, the nick half way down her neck, the lifeless eyes. The photo as a whole just doesn't make sense yet I can't fathom out why the parents would put this picture out in the public domain knowing that it would be scrutinised.
Could it be that it wasn't actually the parents who released the make up photo?

***
Now there's thought, Hicks.
IT was CEOP, who made the viral video. They might have had free hands to select which images to use.
I know that there are a lot of people, who don't believe in Jim Gamble. I do [so far], remembering the flurry of t.v. presentations then with him and the McCanns. Gerry was very uncomfortable at those [up to hyperventilating], camera movements were very interesting too. E.g. Gamble saying something knows and camera switching to Close-up of a gasping GM ...

by Doug D 11.12.13 18:13

But the Mail says it was, so it must be true!!!!!

by Guest 11.12.13 19:20

Tangled Web wrote:Ladyinred - IIRC is an abbreviation for if I recall correctly

This photo just isn't 'natural' and looks very 'posed'. I'm sure this has been covered already but it definitely is unsettling, especially when you see the dark eyes and no facial expression.

Sofia Murat has remarkably dark eyes.

by Guest 11.12.13 19:33

CR, I've seen pictures of Murat's daughter. And despite the press flurry in 2007, I've never seen any likeness, apart from them being girls' blonde and approx.the same age. Which goes for many young girls, as Bridget O'Donnelll so remarkably described in her Guardian piece: " they were all beautiful, blonde and pink ..." in PdL

by Guest 11.12.13 19:38

Châtelaine wrote:CR, I've seen pictures of Murat's daughter. And despite the press flurry in 2007, I've never seen any likeness, apart from them being girls' blonde and approx.the same age. Which goes for many young girls, as Bridget O'Donnelll so remarkably described in her Guardian piece: " they were all beautiful, blonde and pink ..." in PdL

I agree, there's little similarity between SM and MM. But then I think there's little similarity between MM and the "eyeshadow" photo. Especially since that photo would have to have been taken at least a couple of weeks prior to the pool photo - pool girl looks much younger. Eyeshadow girl, if I had to guess, I would put at age seven or so?

Apologies if you're eating at this time.

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

by Guest 25.05.16 16:44

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

why the heck did the McCanns ever release it?

Maybe to continue putting pressure on someone, to extort?

Everytime the funds slow down, the Mccanns turn up the heat.

Not too much, they are above a fire too: being framed for murder.

Either way neither side can come clean with the whole truth, just hint at parts of it(real or fabricated) which are enough to make the other side hopefully fall in line.

Perhaps this picture(considered inappropriate by most observers) is all too familiar to some parties. The basis on which the original agreement was made.

Remeber the Mccann Pr machinery feeding the press the notion she was abducted after being selected on the basis of pictures taken and send back for approval.

These 'releases' and theories tangentially touch upon the truth of the matter, enough to upset people in certain circles.

These ofcourse set off counter moves incriminating evidence against the parents...

They were having financial difficulties some suggest and they werent there to enjoy themselves said GM.

Perhaps the trip was put together by a friend to introduce them to new circles and consummate a deal. But disaster struck. Bringing in high level professional cleaners and fixers. The Mccanns given every possible support. Frantic telephones and urgent flights to Portugal. But then the body being removed without KM knowing leading to her exclamation: They have taken her! The Fund acting as a pay off.

The Mccanns suddenly finding themselves at the center of attention, money coming in,thinking themselves untouchable. Even given the chance to privately say goodbye to their daughter's cremated remains.
No body,no proof of any wrongdoing right? Gaspar statement notwithstanding...

But these people they are dealing with are not idiots: imagine the Mccanns shock when the dog results came in: an alternative fallback scenario is unfolding before their eyes. And now it is kinda like a Mexican standoff...

Just a theory and general impression, not real.
----------

Hope you don't mind my shifting your post over here as it primarily concerns the 'make-up' photograph.

Madeleine McCann May 2010 Appeal - video courtesy of Jon Corner private productions..

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

Watch through, it's less than two and a half minutes - what's your general opinion of that I ask? Nothing too committal of course but to me it seems to be a very odd video to issue on the third anniversary of a missing child, especially when the parents put so much emphasis on their initial thoughts as to the fate of Madeleine.

by Roxyroo 25.05.16 17:51

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

why the heck did the McCanns ever release it?

Maybe to continue putting pressure on someone, to extort?

Everytime the funds slow down, the Mccanns turn up the heat.

Not too much, they are above a fire too: being framed for murder.

Either way neither side can come clean with the whole truth, just hint at parts of it(real or fabricated) which are enough to make the other side hopefully fall in line.

Perhaps this picture(considered inappropriate by most observers) is all too familiar to some parties. The basis on which the original agreement was made.

Remeber the Mccann Pr machinery feeding the press the notion she was abducted after being selected on the basis of pictures taken and send back for approval.

These 'releases' and theories tangentially touch upon the truth of the matter, enough to upset people in certain circles.

These ofcourse set off counter moves incriminating evidence against the parents...

They were having financial difficulties some suggest and they werent there to enjoy themselves said GM.

Perhaps the trip was put together by a friend to introduce them to new circles and consummate a deal. But disaster struck. Bringing in high level professional cleaners and fixers. The Mccanns given every possible support. Frantic telephones and urgent flights to Portugal. But then the body being removed without KM knowing leading to her exclamation: They have taken her! The Fund acting as a pay off.

The Mccanns suddenly finding themselves at the center of attention, money coming in,thinking themselves untouchable. Even given the chance to privately say goodbye to their daughter's cremated remains.
No body,no proof of any wrongdoing right? Gaspar statement notwithstanding...

But these people they are dealing with are not idiots: imagine the Mccanns shock when the dog results came in: an alternative fallback scenario is unfolding before their eyes. And now it is kinda like a Mexican standoff...

Just a theory and general impression, not real.
----------

Hope you don't mind my shifting your post over here as it primarily concerns the 'make-up' photograph.

Madeleine McCann May 2010 Appeal - video courtesy of Jon Corner private productions..

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

Watch through, it's less than two and a half minutes - what's your general opinion of that I ask? Nothing too committal of course but to me it seems to be a very odd video to issue on the third anniversary of a missing child, especially when the parents put so much emphasis on their initial thoughts as to the fate of Madeleine.

I agree Verdi, very strange video indeed!

by soedar 25.05.16 21:24

Verdi, Roxyroo

Could you eloborate your thoughts? What do you find odd about the video.

by MayMuse 25.05.16 23:58

soedar wrote:Verdi, Roxyroo

Could you eloborate your thoughts? What do you find odd about the video.

What do you find "odd" with it [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]?

by soedar 26.05.16 0:05

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

Me? nothing

I was quoting Verdi and Roxyroo:

"Watch through, it's less than two and a half minutes - what's your general opinion of that I ask? Nothing too committal of course but to me it seems to be a very odd video to issue on the third anniversary of a missing child, especially when the parents put so much emphasis on their initial thoughts as to the fate of Madeleine.

I agree Verdi, very strange video indeed!"

Because I could find nothing odd with it(that is as normal as anything coming from team Mccann can be) I asked them to eloborate on their description of "odd" and "strange" of it

by Guest 26.05.16 0:18

soedar wrote:Verdi, Roxyroo

Could you eloborate your thoughts? What do you find odd about the video.

Very bad form to answer a question with a question soedar. If you can't see straight off that there is something very inappropriate about this short video then I have nothing further to add.

by MayMuse 26.05.16 0:21

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

Me? nothing

I was quoting Verdi and Roxyroo:

"Watch through, it's less than two and a half minutes - what's your general opinion of that I ask? Nothing too committal of course but to me it seems to be a very odd video to issue on the third anniversary of a missing child, especially when the parents put so much emphasis on their initial thoughts as to the fate of Madeleine.

I agree Verdi, very strange video indeed!"

Because I could find nothing odd with it(that is as normal as anything coming from team Mccann can be) I asked them to eloborate on their description of "odd" and "strange" of it

Okay well you've obviously watched it,so considering this was an "appeal" to bring home their daughter Madeleine 3 years after she vanished into thin air... Do you not find it "odd" at the choice of the newly released photographs of Madeleine portrayed in make up and contortionate (think that's a word ) :emo3: If not insert "suggestive" poses!? Especially since they believed that she had been "taken" by paedophiles???!
Now ask yourself if this was your daughter ...
1) would you even possess such photo types
2) if you did ( as the MCCanns obviously do) would you allow them to be published? (They are not "typical" photos which parents of a 3 year old would take (IMO) but each to their own)
3) why do an appeal for your daughter and not mention any reward money?

For me, this video was more like a "promotion" & that's really what I think on the matter.
IMHO

by BarryTheHatchet 26.05.16 21:45

That photo always gives me the shudders.
Another poster said it on a different thread the other night. I forget which one. But it was along the lines of - the makeup photos, the instant assumption about the involvment of paedophiles, the infamous page 129 - all point to one thing.
As does the "theft" of Gerry's credit cards and wallet, and the "sick man" he helped on the plane - who has never been traced.
And the "family friend" who claimed that Gerry has thrown out the challenge to "find the body and prove we killed her".

Now just supposing a little body did turn up - with it's "perfect little genitals torn apart". Then we would have the "See, I told you so!" defence. Just like the "Sean likes Sea Bass" defence, "a dog bit me as I was jogging" defence, "the twins squeezed in a haircut" defence and a million other explanations for "anything the police have or have not found".