Photographs revisited - questions

[tigger]

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


Observations:

It’s quite clear that the hand holding the ice cream is:

a)rather large and seems to have definite knuckles.
b)has been inserted on top of the original image
c)is not at all connected to the left arm of Maddie - it is in fact impossible to connect that hand to the upper arm, the elbow of the left arm is nowhere near the truncated lower arm.
further:
d)why was the extra, dripping icecream cone added?
e)she is already sucking a lolly - it’s not likely that she’d be using a spoon
f)ice cream has connotations in pictures known as ‘paedo candy’
g)eyeliner is clear to see in this image
h)it seems to be of very low quality, mid range mobile camera?

[noddy100]

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


Observations:

It’s quite clear that the hand holding the ice cream is:

a)rather large and seems to have definite knuckles.
b)has been inserted on top of the original image
c)is not at all connected to the left arm of Maddie - it is in fact impossible to connect that hand to the upper arm, the elbow of the left arm is nowhere near the truncated lower arm.
further:
d)why was the extra, dripping icecream cone added?
e)she is already sucking a lolly - it’s not likely that she’d be using a spoon
f)ice cream has connotations in pictures known as ‘paedo candy’
g)eyeliner is clear to see in this image
h)it seems to be of very low quality, mid range mobile camera?

Who took it?
At what stage of the investigation was this released?
Doesn't really look anything like the child they are looking for

[tigger]

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

This photo was taken within two months of 3/5, I rather think in June 2007 as Gerry mentions this particular T-shirt in his blog and iirc he didn't wear it for long.

It occurs to me:

That a practically comatose blonde girl was available that night
That it would be very hard to determine whether a child of two years three months, or a child of three (as advertised although Maddie was nearly four) is being carried.

Observations:

Why is Amelie always pictured with her hair in bunches and Maddie never?

How long was Amelie's hair on 3/5/07?

How easy would it be to mistake a blond (advertised as blond where Maddie had light brown hair) child of two for one of three?

Imo it's quite possible that it was Amelie who was seen by the Smiths.

[tigger]

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

- and just for good measure - without comment.  

[Guest]

Never seen that Ice Cream pic of MBM before. How strange indeed. Absolutely that is not her arm holding the cone. Very strange.

Yes, regards to Amelie. IMO which i mentioned on another thread, i thought it was highly likely that it was a sedated Amelie being carried when spotted by the Smiths.

Surely nobody else would volunteer there daughter for a 'staged abduction'. 

Agree, in regards to Amelie again that they changed the hairstyle afterwards to try and distance a resemblance of MBM. 

All IMO of course.

[noddy100]

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

This photo was taken within two months of 3/5, I rather think in June 2007 as Gerry mentions this particular T-shirt in his blog and iirc he didn't wear it for long.

It occurs to me:

That a practically comatose blonde girl was available that night
That it would be very hard to determine whether a child of two years three months, or a child of three (as advertised although Maddie was nearly four) is being carried.

Observations:

Why is  Amelie always pictured with her hair in bunches and Maddie never?

How long was Amelie's hair on 3/5/07?

How easy would it be to mistake a blond (advertised as blond where Maddie had light brown hair) child of two for one of three?

Imo it's quite possible that it was Amelie who was seen by the Smiths.

very possible actually

[Guest]

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

There is a photo about a third of the way down on the right which is supposedly of Madeleine with her hair in bunches but it doesn't look like her to me.

[Guest]

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

There is a photo about a third of the way down on the right which is supposedly of Madeleine with her hair in bunches but it doesn't look like her to me.

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

Your right - IMO as well it doesn't look like her.

[Guest]

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

I don't think this picture looks anything like her either....

[Guest]

I wouldn't be surprised if the one in red is Kate as a child.

[tigger]

I wouldn't be surprised if the one in red is Kate as a child.

I don.t think either of those are Maddie. I will post some more next week to show a few that definitely aren't her and it's easily proved by comparing the teeth alone. Imo there are quite a few well known photographs which are not Maddie. The enormous difference (the smile alone makes it clear imo) between the two Everton shirt pictures for anstance.

[comperedna]

I have lots of photos of my children and grandchildren which when they came out somehow 'didn't look like them'. That's how photographs are sometimes.  I think if you are speculating that a picture is NOT of who it purports to be of you do have to be looking at things like a gap in between the front teeth, an obvious coloboma or not, or something else measurable, or very definite.

[comperedna]

A lot of these concerns could be aided by the more recent advanced types of facial recognition software.

[comperedna]

Changes in shape of face and head or a child as they grow make comparisons of pictures supposedly of the same child at different ages particularly problematic. All young creatures have cute forshortened faces which lengthen and extend as the jaw and other features extend and develop. It is tiny baby teeth till 5 or 6.

[HelenMeg]

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


Observations:

It’s quite clear that the hand holding the ice cream is:

a)rather large and seems to have definite knuckles.
b)has been inserted on top of the original image
c)is not at all connected to the left arm of Maddie - it is in fact impossible to connect that hand to the upper arm, the elbow of the left arm is nowhere near the truncated lower arm.
further:
d)why was the extra, dripping icecream cone added?
e)she is already sucking a lolly - it’s not likely that she’d be using a spoon
f)ice cream has connotations in pictures known as ‘paedo candy’
g)eyeliner is clear to see in this image
h)it seems to be of very low quality, mid range mobile camera?

Who took it?
At what stage of the investigation was this released?
Doesn't really look anything like the child they are looking for

To me , it appears to be a photo designed to be attractive to a paedophile. It is not a picture of a little girl enjoying an ice-cream at the sea-side - caught on camera for the family album. It looks heavily staged
and the girl is wearing eye-liner. Of course, it may well be a photo that has been posed for in order to have in Mc Cann's family album... but I would consider that extremely odd and naive. At first glance it simply looks very suggestive and something I would tear up immediately if I were her mother. Extraordinary and absurd.

[HelenMeg]

If I were the police I'd want to know who took it and under what circumstances.. did her mother actually approve this photo? Did her father? Was it taken by other people without her family knowing?
What on earth is the background and why was it released?

[tigger]

I'm pretty sure the ice cream photo was in the video released by Jon Corner. That video also had the Snowhite clip in it iirc.
Perhaps  someone can find it, would have been released  fairly early.

[Guest]

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

IMO - these 3 pictures are very disturbing of a 3 year old girl. Just not right at all. Again IMO.

[Nereid]

I'm pretty sure the ice cream photo was in the viral video released by Jon Corner. That video also had the Snowhite clip in it iirc.
Perhaps  someone can find it, would have been released  fairly early.

The ice cream photo was included in the 2010 appeal video, as well as the skirting board photo and the make-up photo:

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

Close-up stills from the video:

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

She's wearing the same dress in both pictures, so probably taken in the same setting.

Could the eyeliner be photoshopped in?

[tigger]

@nereid.

I've wondered that as well but if it's photoshopped it's done very well and most of the other photoshopping is very ham-fisted.

The eyeliner is in so many photographs, I find it puzzling.

But it could have been added at the same time as the coloboma when that was pasted in. It would surely be very difficult to apply eyeliner on the inside lids of a child?

[joyce1938]

I must say I have small tot in our family, that definatly does not use eyeliner, yet her dark lashes do look like eyeliner in photos. I don't think we can be certain of this. joyce1938

[Guest]

tigger: what's the official line on the coloboma?  Does MBM have one or not?  I'm slightly confused about this.

ETA, just read some older threads; it seems she now has a speckle instead.

[tigger]

tigger: what's the official line on the coloboma?  Does MBM have one or not?  I'm slightly confused about this.

ETA, just read some older threads; it seems she now has a speckle instead.

Since we were informed in the Morgan interview of 2011 that it's just a fleck which you can see only when you're very close the coloboma is off the menu.
They've been very careful not to call it a coloboma. I have my own ideas about it,  it was certainly a good marketing ploy but perhaps it wasn't expected to go on for quite so many years.

So don't ask me why it still appears in age advanced photos.   
Lots of believers still it seems.

[Guest]

Changes in shape of face and head or a child as they grow make comparisons of pictures supposedly of the same child at different ages particularly problematic. All young creatures have cute forshortened faces which lengthen and extend as the jaw and other features extend and develop. It is tiny baby teeth till 5 or 6.

Comparing the various photos in the link posted by NFWTD, do you have any views on why some of the images show Maddie to have a very puffy face, particularly around the eyes?  The more provocative photos almost blot out the form of her eyelids whereas other photos show different features.

[canada12]

Wouldn't the fact that they're now stating she didn't have a coloboma count as "hindering the search for Madeleine"?

After all, the world was asked to look for a 3-4 year old with a distinctive eye marking. If it now turns out that she didn't have a distinctive eye marking, isn't that misleading?

How can they accuse GA of hindering the search when they hindered it themselves?

[Guest]

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

Interesting that this report starts off with the three most unsettling and inappropriate photos of Madeleine. Sometimes I think that the media is trying to get the other side of the story across.

You can't expect accuracy as well though - Madeleine would it says now be nine years old!

[sharonl]

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


Observations:

It’s quite clear that the hand holding the ice cream is:

a)rather large and seems to have definite knuckles.
b)has been inserted on top of the original image
c)is not at all connected to the left arm of Maddie - it is in fact impossible to connect that hand to the upper arm, the elbow of the left arm is nowhere near the truncated lower arm.
further:
d)why was the extra, dripping icecream cone added?
e)she is already sucking a lolly - it’s not likely that she’d be using a spoon
f)ice cream has connotations in pictures known as ‘paedo candy’
g)eyeliner is clear to see in this image
h)it seems to be of very low quality, mid range mobile camera?

Just when you think that nothing further could shock you in this case, you read this post. You are absolutely right, the hand holding the ice cream has been slotted into this picture. This is not a picture that I had attached any importance too with regards Madeleines' disappearance so I had never looked at it closely before.

It has definitely been manipulated but not for any obvious reason to do with this case. I am afraid to ask why?

[Guest]

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


Observations:

It’s quite clear that the hand holding the ice cream is:

a)rather large and seems to have definite knuckles.
b)has been inserted on top of the original image
c)is not at all connected to the left arm of Maddie - it is in fact impossible to connect that hand to the upper arm, the elbow of the left arm is nowhere near the truncated lower arm.
further:
d)why was the extra, dripping icecream cone added?
e)she is already sucking a lolly - it’s not likely that she’d be using a spoon
f)ice cream has connotations in pictures known as ‘paedo candy’
g)eyeliner is clear to see in this image
h)it seems to be of very low quality, mid range mobile camera?

Just when you think that nothing further could shock you in this case, you read this post. You are absolutely right, the hand holding the ice cream has been slotted into this picture.  This is not a picture that I had attached any importance too with regards Madeleines' disappearance so I had never looked at it closely before.  

It has definitely been manipulated but not for any obvious reason to do with this case.  I am afraid to ask why?

That picture is truly shocking and disturbing. It's very obvious what the picture is implying. It would be interesting to know how and who put in the public domain for all to see. Surely Mr and Mrs wouldn't of done.

When you see a pic like that, put together with the Gasper statements, Yvonne Martin's observation about Payne, Gerry's deleted cats file etc etc then it all links to the dreaded and sickening 'P' word.

IMO there has to be a link between the 'P' word and all the government assistance, help, cover up etc etc.

[Guest]

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.]

[ChippyM]

I must say I have small tot in our family ,that definatly does not use eyeliner ,yet her dark lashes do look like  eyeliner in photos ,I don't think we can be certain of this . joyce1938

  I don't think it's anything that's been photoshopped in either. these are low resolution photos that have likely been compressed and resized numerous times when saved, dark areas such as the eyelashes will not show much variation in shade and give the impression of a solid line or area when there wasn't necessarily one.

  i'm really not a fan of analysing such images from the web, even experts analysing original, better quality photos have a hard time proving things from them. The poses in some of the photos are definitely odd though.