The changing Coloboma of Madeleine

Posted by Sasha on Little Morsals [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

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


All photos below can be enlarged by clicking on them.

I noticed on the latest video released by the McCann couple for the 3rd anniversary since Madeleine disappeared that there’s no coloboma in Madeleine’s right eye on the poster above Kate’s head (office wall)


It could be argued that this was a photo from the early days where the coloboma may have been removed from the first photo released of Madeleine when the McCann couple were advised not to focus attention to her eye defect, but it could also be argued, why would the McCann couple choose to enlarge and dispaly the photo minus the coloboma as a poster for their wall? After all, the coloboma was (apparently) part of their daughter wasn't it?

But it doesn’t explain other photos where the coloboma is...

1. Missing in everyday photos released after they decided it was okay to display her mark


...Or....

2. At the wrong angle

(Difficult to imagine 6 o’clock in a side view photograph perhaps? To the best of my knowledge, coloboma will not change position regardless whether the child is upside down or not.)



...Or....

3. Top and Bottom


The following pictures have been taken from various photos of Madeleine. The coloboma is so striking (according to the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ) that to my mind, if the iris is visible then the coloboma should be too....the blurred photo (middle of the third row down) shows the bottom of her iris as she looks upward but there's no coloboma.





Photos used for the above 'clips' (not necessary in the same order though):





People sharing their experiences of coloboma:

Coloboma light sensitivity

I’m new to coloboma so I’ve had to do a lot of searching and reading on the internet to understand the condition. During one of my “let’s find out more” moments I came across an article [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] by Kimberly Crandell where she shares her condition and effects of coloboma with others.

Although Kimberly has what she says is “a very mild case of this condition” she goes onto explain something I think is, perhaps, relevant to whether or not Madeleine truly had/has coloboma.

Kimberly explains in her article that only her irises are affected and that since her eyes form from the back to the front, that means the rest of her eyes formed normally and her condition is more cosmetic than anything. Even so, she explains further that although her sight is fine (and, for me at least, this is the interesting part) Kimberly suffers from increased light sensitivity because her pupils are larger than average. The iris, which usually limits the amount of light entering the eye by controlling the size of the pupil, does not work properly as a result of having coloboma and does not dilate normally in bright light.

Kimberly goes on to explain:

“Sunglasses are my friend, and are so essential to my comfort on sunny days that they are almost like a security feature for me...”

And...

"The very worst part of having coloboma was while growing up in Colorado, walking to school on sunny mornings after a fresh snow. The sunlight reflecting off the snow on the ground was more than I could handle. My eyes would squeeze shut until they were mere slits, yet they would continue to water so much under the strain that tears would roll down my face without end. At this age, my mom would buy me sunglasses – but they would always be lost within an hour. So most times I had no protection, and the only way I could make my way to school was by walking behind my sister and focusing on her shadow on the ground; her shadow was the only respite in an otherwise unending field of bright white light. I would trudge behind her, head down, following that shadow until we would reach the protection and relative darkness of our school building. I would experience such tension during the walk to school on such days, that more often than not I suffered from a headache the rest of the morning. Even today, my “dream city” is Seattle. My favorite days are overcast and cool, since I am neither a fan of sunshine nor heat. My sun-loving husband however disagrees, and instead keeps me comfortably outfitted with sunglasses instead of going house-hunting in Washington state.”

That’s an incredible amount of light sensitivity for someone who only has a mild form of coloboma.

Another story I read from their personal experience is from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] who’s baby (Amina) has coloboma:

“Normal irises dilate and constrict to admit appropriate amounts of light onto our retinas. Amina's irises have gaps in them which let in a great deal more light than her retinas would like. This makes her very sensitive to sunlight and also gives her super night vision. We have gotten super cute baby sunglasses for her to wear outside.”

It certainly seems that light sensitivity is an issue even among those who have a mild form of the condition and sunglasses appear to be a "must have" accessory.






Pamalam’s photo gallery of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has several outside shots of Madeleine. She also has a vast library of various photos from the McCann case in her [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] section.

Considering coloboma can't change position or shape and considering Madeleine doesn’t appear to have any problems with light sensitivity...it seems to add to the possibility that Madeleine may not have had coloboma after all.

Side note: I believe the police were denied access to Madeleine's medical records - could this be the reason why?

Here are two useful videos:

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

Apr
22
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Logic gates
Digital systems are said to be constructed by using logic gates. These gates are the AND, OR, NOT, NAND, NOR, EXOR and EXNOR gates. The basic operations are described below with the aid of truth tables.




Luckily the coloboma is a fairly simple affair. There either was one or there wasn’t. 


The truth table:  




Madeleine Beth McCann - the girl with the thunderbolt eye.
Trademark: 24560601: Madeleine’s Fund - leaving no stone unturned. 
Registered on 18th May 2007.  Ltd. Company registered in England and Wales, CRN 6248215. 

New website and fund launched on 16th May: 
Website findmadeleine.com - according to McCanns interview in the Guardian(17/8/07), domain name was orginally purchased by a stranger in France and then donated to the family. However:  Jon Corner, had registered this website on the 14th of May:
Domain ID:D145995330-LROR
Domain Name:FINDMADELEINE.ORG
Created On:14-May-2007 14:31:24 UTC
Last Updated On:14-May-2009 16:18:36 UTC
Expiration Date:14-May-2010 14:31:24 UTC
 Registrant Name:Jon Corner
Registrant Organization:Jon Corner

17th May 2007: Application to make MBM a Ward of Court.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Luckily the coloboma is a fairly simple affair. There either was one or there wasn’t. 
Benefits of the coloboma:

A USP  - a unique selling point - a good marketing ploy:
Vanity Fair interview, September 2007, published February issue 2008)
Gerry McCann: "We thought it was possible this could hurt her. Her abductor might do something to her eye. But in marketing terms it was a good ploy."  

It eliminates many millions of other little girls of that age. Without the coloboma countless children would have needed to have their  DNA analysed,  innocent parents  would have been under suspicion so in general - considering the global interest - the coloboma would eliminate all these complications. 

Which  would free TM for other duties. Otherwise the world - fed on this fairly tale - would expect the parents to fly all over the world  in the hope of finding their daughter. Nothing less would be expected from them and every time the nation would hold its breath whilst the parents would fly out to cross another child from the list. (1)

No Coloboma - not Maddie. 
But an  inversion means that  any photograph produced by TM of a toddler with the coloboma means it is Maddie. The USP  could be added any time this was needed. 

Drawbacks:

The USP: assuming abduction of any kind this made her instantly recognisable and was therefore a danger to the abductor. 
Quote: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], Polícia Judiciária: "If that situation had been of an abduction, it would have been terrible for the child. Because if that child were to be sold, or something else... She was as good as... it was her death sentence. That situation, that day, advertising that photo, was simply the death sentence of that child."
and: 
Gerry McCann (see above) Her abductor might do something to her eye.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

No coloboma:

Benefits:

Lots more sightings:
- can be used to generate publicity. 
- more interest and income for the Fund with the publicity.
- can be used to stress the incompetence of the PJ. 
- can be generated whenever necessary - in some cases retrieved from years back. 
- sightings have consistently appeared just before the anniversary of the disappearance. 

But as it happened, sightings were plentiful in any case without the identifying mark ever being mentioned. Over 2000 were listed in the PJ files.  

Drawbacks:

Children  and parents needlessly harassed if child looks like Madeleine.

Explaining all those prominent colobomas in photographs to the public: this was achieved by mixing it in a long interview with Piers Morgan, aired on 11/5/2011 to publicise the book ‘madeleine’ . 
(On the 12th the Scotland Yard start Operation Grange). 
-----------------------------------------------------
MORGAN: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.
K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but --
MORGAN: Slightly distinctive eye colors and a little fleck. And do you know if that would be still there if she's now eight years old?
G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris. I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems.
--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. G. McCann: as a father and a doctor isn’t even sure what condition his first-born may or may not have had. However, the Lancet, a venerable medical publication had no problem in publishing the c-word.:




(1) Sightings:

The  only case reported where a small girl  in New Zealand had such a feature her parents had to submit evidence  several times that she was their child and on the last occasion her DNA was analysed.  Needless to say, the DNA didn’t match. 

------------------------------------
Thedailybeast:  Crime February 2nd, 2013. 
Madeleine McCann Sightings in New Zealand lead to DNA request. 

Whenever someone calls the Queenstown, New Zealand, police to report that they’ve seen a little girl who looks just like Madeleine McCann, [..]police know exactly whom they are talking about. They’ve been called to investigate a Maddie sighting five times in the last five years in the cities of Queenstown, Milton, and Alexandra, and each time they are led to the same young child, who not only shares McCann’s hair coloring and petite stature, but also has the same coloboma in her right eye. [..]But Scotland Yard wants to be sure. As part of the ongoing McCann case review called [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], which kicked off in May 2011, Metropolitan police want to test the New Zealand child’s DNA to make sure once and for all that she is not McCann. The DNA request has been accepted, but it will take several weeks before test results are complete and the young girl can be completely ruled out as a match.
-------------------------------------
The coloboma is out of use in the Leh (India) sighting in July 2011. Never mentioned, DNA is mentioned, an A4 portrait sent to TM who are cautiously hopeful. The headline is one of those to make one reach for the chequebook:
Mailonline:
'It's not our Maddie': McCanns' hopes dashed after sighting in India
By [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
UPDATED: 20:32 GMT, 28 July 2011
 
Gerry and Kate McCann do not believe a young girl spotted in India is their missing daughter, their spokesman said.
The Chandigarh Tribune said that a British woman had seen a youngster bearing a remarkable likeness to Madeleine who disappeared four years ago. 
But after studying a photo of the child, the McCanns announced this afternoon that the girl was not  their daughter.
Spokesman Clarence Mitchell said the couple were 'certain' the girl was not Madeleine, who would now be eight-years-old.[..]
At one point an American man is said to have tried to take the girl from the couple.
However the French woman and her Belgian husband, who had their passports copied by Leh Police, insist that they are the parents of the girl.
A spokesman for Leh police told the Chandigarh Tribune in India: 'It all depends upon the evidence like DNA for which help from Madeleine's parents and the British police was required.' 

Not a whisper about the identifying marks (spot on leg in passport or coloboma (not in passport) or fleck or different coloured eyes..).

See also: 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Logic Gate:






The photographic evidence speaks for itself. Colobomas do not move around. In the  first photographs it is at 7 o’clock as in the iconic photo. In some there isn’t one at all. 

The inevitable conclusion is that there wasn’t one. She had a small fleck in her eye which was barely visible. 
Therefore when there is a clearly visible coloboma in the photograph, it has been put there. This is a logical conclusion in my opinion.

It was present in the very first photo allegedly printed at midnight at the OC and  if the coloboma was an added extra it won’t go either through the logic gates or through the Kodak printer in the OC.  

We never made much of it
We never called her Maddy.

Two LIES for the price of one.

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

Snipped
Gerry McCann: "We thought it was possible this could hurt her. Her abductor might do something to her eye. But in marketing terms it was a good ploy."

What a very odd thing to say !
Abductor kills the victim if he wants rid of evidence.
Never heard of abductor doing thing to outstanding feature just to hide victim?

PeterMac wrote:We never made much of it
We never called her Maddy.

Two LIES for the price of one.

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

Was the blemish on Madeleine's leg ever mentioned? The blemish that I believe was noted on her passport as a distinguishing mark (unlike the eye defect)?

aquila wrote:Was the blemish on Madeleine's leg ever mentioned? The blemish that I believe was noted on her passport as a distinguishing mark (unlike the eye defect)?

Nope, of course NOT ! 
Blemish on leg is not birth mark.  Inflicted mark is not useful as marketing ploy.

Pertinent question has to be  - why they rescind their "eye defect" remark?
Not so useful when it comes to fabricating sightings, because unless the child seen is reported to have this "distinctive" feature then any sighting can be dismissed straight out of hands as "not Madeleine".  That's why there are so many pseudo sightings, all fabrications.