Re: The Mystery of the Make-Up Photo - was it taken on the same day as the Last Photo?

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.16 10:30

Grande Finale wrote:The "Make Up" photo was said to have been taken on "A family holiday" so doubtful it was the PDL holiday or I think they would have said? I think it was most likely taken on holiday the year before in 2006 there is another photograph with the twins on GM's knee where he is wearing a blue T-shirt which matches the blue in the "Make Up" photo. Maddie's appearance is also very similiar IMO

First of all, let us not get to hung up about whether or not the photo of the apartment that April 28^th has posted up is the actual apartment where the ‘Make Up Photo' was taken. Undoubtedly April 28^th has done a great deal of research on the issue, which is very commendable. I am not yet convinced - and I think it may have been taken somewhere else, nearby.

Second, I cannot agree that Madeleine looks like she does on a 2006 photo taken up to a year earlier. Many observers, like myself, see a striking similarity of facial features between how she looks on the Last Photo and on the Make Up Photo. Besides that, almost all observers so far have agreed that Madeleine’s hair and fringe look identical on both photos - in terms of style, length of fringe, colour of hair and so on.

In addition, it is clear that the Make Up Photo was taken against a background of pale yellow/ochre stucco. We find these types of walls throughout the Algarve region, but they are extremely rare in this country.

On top of all that there is the remarkable coincidence that on both photos, Madeleine is seen wearing a pink bow or bead - which is extremely rare, I can only find two other examples among hundreds of other photos of Madeleine. OK, they may not be the same bow, but on both occasions, she was being dressed up by an adult. She was clearly dressed up on the Last Photo, and further dressed up, ‘Lolita’-like, on the Make Up Photo – with a necklace, blue eyeshadow, and lipstick.

Now let me come to the statement that the McCanns themselves made about the Make Up Photo.

They said:

“It was taken on a family holiday”.

And I suggest that that is a statement that is at one and the same time both 100% true and yet wholly misleading.

If it was taken in Praia da Luz on that holiday, as more and more people now agree, the statement was absolutely factual.

Yet at the same time it was brilliantly misleading, leading people to think that they were referring to another, earlier holiday. It is the kind of ‘true-but-misleading’ statement that was surely crafted by a master media manipulator.

Indeed, I am thinking of another such statement made by Clarence Mitchell, uttered by him in the very same interview in which he gave this forum its name, when he said Madeleine’s disappearance was ‘A Complete Mystery’.

Challenged by a reporter as to whether Jane Tanner had identified Robert Murat as the abductor she claimed to have seen at 9.15pm on Thursday 3 May 2007, he hesitated a split second before replying:

“At no time did Jane Tanner name Robert Murat as the person he’d seen”.

100% true, but again, utterly misleading!

There is one other footnote I wish to add, which maybe we have forgotten.

And that is that we cannot assume that the McCanns and the McCann Team actually put out Jon Corner’s strange 2-minute video, from which the Make Up Photo and two other controversial posed photographs, the Floorboard Photo and the Ice Lolly Photo, were taken.

The video was put out by Jon Corner. He had access to these photographs in order to put them in his video. They were his choice. Over three previous years the McCans and the McCann Team had NOT released ANY of these three controversial photos.

I think we have to consider the possibility that this video was released WITHOUT the McCanns' permission. That is why, perhaps, the McCanns were clearly scrabbling for an explanation for the Make Up Photo, claiming that Madeleine was playing with her mother’s make-up box on a family holiday.

Which was patently untrue…

by JRP 09.11.16 11:44

The apartment in April28th's photo has a white wall as others have stated above. When the sun blind/canopy is extended it casts a shadow, but it is also causing an ochre colour cast.

If the "make up" photo was taken at this location, you would expect to see a similar colour casting, tinting, on Madeleine's skin tone and hair. Skin would absorb the tinting less dramatically than a white wall would, but evidence of tinting would be visible across the whole image and Madeleine's face would be slightly yellow/ochre in appearance.
I believe the stucco wall in the "make up" photo is ochre paint, rather than a yellow/ochre tinting or colour casting from an extended canopy.

I believe the "make up" photo belongs to the PdL holiday, taken somewhere around the time of the Last Photo, but not taken at the location suggested by April28th.

If the video was released without the Mc's consent, who supplied Jon Corner with this image?

by worriedmum 09.11.16 12:09

Can someone supply the source of the quote from the McCanns that says the photo was taken on holiday, please?

by sar 09.11.16 12:16

JRP wrote:The apartment in April28th's photo has a white wall as others have stated above. When the sun blind/canopy is extended it casts a shadow, but it is also causing an ochre colour cast.

If the "make up" photo was taken at this location, you would expect to see a similar colour casting, tinting, on Madeleine's skin tone and hair. Skin would absorb the tinting less dramatically than a white wall would, but evidence of tinting would be visible across the whole image and Madeleine's face would be slightly yellow/ochre in appearance.
I believe the stucco wall in the "make up" photo is ochre paint, rather than a yellow/ochre tinting or colour casting from an extended canopy.

I believe the "make up" photo belongs to the PdL holiday, taken somewhere around the time of the Last Photo, but not taken at the location suggested by April28th.

If the video was released without the Mc's consent, who supplied Jon Corner with this image?

As I understand it from the Jon Corner video in KM's words "...other cases of children been taken or killed or whatever....." Perhaps just a "throwaway" comment from a mother of a missing child being interviewed in carefree surroundings by someone she knows, perhaps something else.

by Guest 09.11.16 12:29

Fifty shades of ochre stucco.

The make-up photograph could have been taken anywhere, apartment 5a Ocean Club for example..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The image is not clear so impossible, in my view, to determine a precise location from the background alone. The time of day/year the image was taken would alter wall surface colouration

by Guest 09.11.16 12:36

Grande Finale wrote:This is a picture with the sun shade in, from Aug 09 it is pure white as are all of the properties
around it, so make up photo definitely not taken at this location.

I'm at a loss to understand why anyone would think the photograph was taken at this location.

by worriedmum 09.11.16 13:43

It does appear to be taken from below which might suggest someone standing below a balcony

by kaz 09.11.16 14:14

worriedmum wrote:It does appear to be taken from below which might suggest someone standing below a balcony

It's the angle of her head and the lack of expression on her little face that I find even more disconcerting than the carefully applied make up..........................but not that carefully applied that we don't get the little girl/ woman message. As a mother of three children ( now grown and flown ) who has literally hundreds of photos of the kids growing up I cannot understand the subtext of that photograph. Let me explain: I have photographs of Aria**** playing with the dogs, Geo***pulling faces and Ly*** paddling, splashing and just generally mucking about . Not always smiling, sometimes even scowling but ALWAYS with a telling expression on their faces AND in their body language. You get the idea. Each photograph telling a story of happy times to be remembered at a later moment when the photographs inevitably come out. It's pretty impossible to contrive these images. Kids and their faces just do their own thing. And there in a nutshell is the problem with the make up photograph. It's contrived. The face devoid of childlike expression , the angle of the head, the eyes , the demeanor that tells you nothing and mostly, the sheer lifelessness of it sends shivers down my spine.

by **sandancer** 09.11.16 18:40

I couldn't agree more kaz, what parent could look at that photo and not go cold ?
Compare this with the laughing little girl by the pool on the so called "last photo" . Under what circumstances was this "make up " one taken ? This is not the face of a child who has been playing with mummy's make up even if she got told off for doing it , if that was the case why take the picture ?
I don't know where and when it was taken , what bothers me is why and as I said under what circumstances ?
My heart breaks with the thought that Madeleine might have suffered that is why the good folk here and on other places continue to fight for truth and justice for her and for her brother and sister .
I will continue to do my little bit , spread the word and hope that Madeleine rests in peace.

by Guest 09.11.16 20:56

Tony Bennett wrote:

The video was put out by Jon Corner. He had access to these photographs in order to put them in his video. They were his choice. Over three previous years the McCans and the McCann Team had NOT released ANY of these three controversial photos.

I think we have to consider the possibility that this video was released WITHOUT the McCanns' permission. That is why, perhaps, the McCanns were clearly scrabbling for an explanation for the Make Up Photo, claiming that Madeleine was playing with her mother’s make-up box on a family holiday.

Which was patently untrue…

There's always a possibility that Jon Corner deliberately used those particular provocative photographs to illustrate that 'certain quality' he saw in Madeleine.

The McCanns and their support network, right from the start, planted the abduction by paedophile hypothesis for the world's consumption. I can't literally count the number of times the word 'paedophile' features in 'madeleine' by KATE MCCANN but I will use this small selection by way of example....

I asked Gerry apprehensively if he’d had any really horrible thoughts or visions of Madeleine. He nodded. Haltingly, I told him about the awful pictures that scrolled through my head of her body, her perfect little genitals torn apart. Although I knew I had to share this burden, just raising the subject out loud to someone else, even Gerry, was excruciating. Admitting the existence of these images somehow confirmed them as a real possibility, and with that confirmation came renewed waves of fear....

Crying in bed again – can’t help it . . . The thought of Madeleine’s fear and pain tears me apart. The thought of paedophiles makes me want to rip my skin off. Surely these people along with psychopaths are not ‘normal’ human beings...

We faced our biggest fear: that Madeleine had been taken by a paedophile and killed....

Can’t stop thinking about Madeleine again – her fear and her pain. Dark thoughts have been creeping in a lot this week. How can I carry on, knowing that her life may have ended like this....
----------

Then there is Jim Gamble and the CEOP, brought in at the very earliest when there was no indication nor suggestion by the Portuguese investigative team of abduction by a paedophile gang.

In this day and age of progressive forensics and technology, there can be no guarantee that evidence of a missing persons body might be uncovered irrespective of how disposal was effected. The absolute disappearance of Madeleine McCann indicates that for some reason it's imperative her body is never found, dead or alive, if ever any physical evidence is uncovered it's likely it could reveal the reason for her 'absolute' disappearance. What better way of explanation can there be but to prepare in advance by spreading false stories about what could or might have been?

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.16 21:39

JRP wrote:I believe the 'Make Up' photo belongs to the PdL holiday, taken somewhere around the time of the Last Photo, but not taken at the location suggested by April28th.

REPLY: I am in full agreement.

If the video was released without the Mc's consent, who supplied Jon Corner with this image?

REPLY: Of course, we don't know. However, we have some indications.

No. 1: Jon Corner came out to Praia da Luz in August 2007, spent a week in the McCanns' villa, and made extensive video footage during his visit, some of which ended up being leaked to Panorama, who used some of it in their Madeleine documentary of 19 November.

No. 2: One of Jon Corner's main professional activities is making films.

No. 3: In the video from which these three photos were taken (The Floorboard Photo, the Make Up Photo and the Ice Lolly Photo), Jon Corner also uses video footage which he presumably took himself e.g. footage of the McCanns walking

No. 4: We know that some other photos of Madeleine were taken by professional and media photographer Paul Grover.

Either of these - or the McCanns - or someone else - could have take the Floorboard and Ice Lolly Photos.

But Jon Corner was not in Praia da Luz during the week 28 April to 5 May, so far as we know,

Nor was Paul Grover.

We cannot say for certain that the McCanns themselves took ANY of these three photos.

We cannot be certain that, if the Make Up Photo WAS taken in Praia da Luz, that it was taken by the McCanns.

It could have been taken by somebody else.

The fact is that the McCanns themselves and their advisers did not put out any of these three images to the press.

I therefore think that the possibility exists that someone else took the Make Up Photo and therefore that photo may never have been in the possession, power or control of the McCanns.

Someone else other than the McCanns may have passed these photos to Jon Corner to help him make that video. The choice of photos is at best peculiar, at worst disturbing.

I think there may have been a hidden motive for releasing this video and choosing these three images. Corner had hundreds of other photos he could have used.

It is a legitimate question to ask (a) why he chose those three and of course (b) where he got the Make Up Photo from.

by Guest 09.11.16 22:59

4th May 2007

The texts and phone calls kept coming. By this time our friend Jon Corner, a creative director in media production in Liverpool, was circulating photographs and video footage of Madeleine to the police, Interpol and broadcasting and newspaper news desks. This was in accordance with the standard advice of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in the US, which advocates getting an image of a missing child into the public domain as soon as possible.

The Birth of our Campaign

There were so many people, our family and friends in particular, who desperately wanted to help. Gerry’s call to arms spurred them into action and gradually they began to pursue their own avenues. The very next evening Gerry’s sister Phil[omena] sent a chain email round the world asking every recipient to help find our little girl. It came with a downloadable poster featuring a photograph of Madeleine, the one of her holding the tennis balls, taken two days before she vanished. This led the following day to the first conversation, between Phil, a teacher, and Calum Macrae, a former pupil of hers and an IT whizzkid, about establishing a website for Madeleine. Jon Corner had opened up the file transfer protocol he’d set up on 4 May to circulate Madeleine’s image to family, friends and other supporters. No, I didn’t know what one of those was, either: basically, it provided access via a password to a repository for photographs and other material, allowing people to share their resources.
Helpers could post their material on a dedicated server via the FTP and use that supplied by others to create flyers, posters and so on. The press already had the password, which gave them access to pictures and video footage.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

There is also reference somewhere to er trawling through the photographs on her camera whilst Gerry McCann was being interviewed. Can't locate it at the moment so will look again later as this raises questions about the outdated photograph issued to the PJ for identification purposes and the absence of any photographs of Madeleine other than the playground, the tennis court and the swimming pool.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.11.16 23:28

Verdi wrote:4th May 2007

The texts and phone calls kept coming. By this time our friend Jon Corner, a creative director in media production in Liverpool, was circulating photographs and video footage of Madeleine to the police, Interpol and broadcasting and newspaper news desks. This was in accordance with the standard advice of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in the US, which advocates getting an image of a missing child into the public domain as soon as possible.

The Birth of our Campaign

There were so many people, our family and friends in particular, who desperately wanted to help. Gerry’s call to arms spurred them into action and gradually they began to pursue their own avenues. The very next evening Gerry’s sister Phil[omena] sent a chain email round the world asking every recipient to help find our little girl. It came with a downloadable poster featuring a photograph of Madeleine, the one of her holding the tennis balls, taken two days before she vanished. This led the following day to the first conversation, between Phil, a teacher, and Calum Macrae, a former pupil of hers and an IT whizzkid, about establishing a website for Madeleine. Jon Corner had opened up the file transfer protocol he’d set up on 4 May to circulate Madeleine’s image to family, friends and other supporters. No, I didn’t know what one of those was, either: basically, it provided access via a password to a repository for photographs and other material, allowing people to share their resources.
Helpers could post their material on a dedicated server via the FTP and use that supplied by others to create flyers, posters and so on. The press already had the password, which gave them access to pictures and video footage.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

There is also reference somewhere to er trawling through the photographs on her camera whilst Gerry McCann was being interviewed. Can't locate it at the moment so will look again later as this raises questions about the outdated photograph issued to the PJ for identification purposes and the absence of any photographs of Madeleine other than the playground, the tennis court and the swimming pool.

@ Verdi You seem to have an encyclopaedic ability to ferret out relevant links and documents at great speed thumbup

I had forgotten about this.

Of course, if Jon Corner had known four days earlier that lots of photos of Madeleine would be needed, then he had a window of four days' preparation, before 3 May, in which case he had plenty of time in which to compile his suite of still photos and video footage of Madeleine, and set up his 'file transfer protocol'.

The article says: "...[the file transfer protocol] provided access via a password to a repository for photographs and other material, allowing people to share their resources..."

So basically, am I right? - he had, as early as 4 May, a library of photographs and videos of Madeleine available, a library which perhaps grew after that...and which may have been the repository for hundreds of photos of Madeleine? Maybe, somehow, the Floorboard Photo, the Make Up Photo and the Ice Lolly Photo all made their way on to his FTP database?

by kaz 10.11.16 8:50

@ Verdi
''............There's always a possibility that Jon Corner deliberately used those particular provocative photographs to illustrate that 'certain quality' he saw in Madeleine..''

Possibly, but it doesn't alter the fact that this disturbing photo had been taken at some time and maybe another venue other than PDL needs to be considered. Actually that scenario chimes in nicely with my thoughts on the case. Whilst I don't dispute that there may well have been unsavoury factors in the lives of the McCann family , I'm not convinced that Madeleine met her death in anything other than a tragic accident. The 'paedophile' angle so readily adopted and 'thrown out there' by Gerry McCann for all to digest always seemed to me like a veiled threat to any interested parties following the events. Maybe I'm being fanciful but to me it seems reasonable. Did the cover up step up a notch after his, '' the paedophiles have taken her' outburst? Such a strange thing to say so soon after the disappearance.

by Doug D 10.11.16 9:07

Verdi @ 22.59

P 112

‘A week had now passed since Madeleine’s abduction. Later that day, Thursday 10 May, the Portuguese police held a press conference, at which they released a photograph of a pair of the same Marks and Spencer pyjamas Madeleine had been wearing and confirmed that they were winding down the ground search.

Meanwhile, Gerry and I, along with a couple of our friends, were called back to the police station in Portimão. The police were much friendlier on this occasion and the junior officers, at least, gave the impression that by this time they were working very hard.

Gerry was taken in to be interviewed while I remained downstairs. I made use of the long wait I anticipated by sitting down with a notebook, pen and my camera, containing dated photographs of the holiday, and trying to write a detailed account of everything that had happened the week before’
………………………………..

We are seriously supposed to believe this wasn’t done for a whole week?

ROB’s statement said the (outdated) photo they printed off on the first night came from ‘Kate’s camera’.

The ‘last photo’ was taken on a Canon PowerShot A620 which I believe is the same as the camera on the table in 5A.

In ‘The Truth of the Lie’ GA had this to say about the initial investigation:

‘We need reliable information. Apart from all the searches already undertaken, we must also examine the photos and films taken by the McCann family and their friends. From amongst the onlookers, these images could help to identify a suspicious-looking individual or someone whose attitude might be suspicious. Trivialised since the general use of computers, photography is a source of information which the investigators know not to neglect: each holiday-maker takes, in general, hundreds of photos. The McCanns and their friends who were in Vila da Luz make all of theirs available to the investigators, but none of those dating from the evening of the disappearance help us to understand what happened.’

Would a camera sat on a table in front of everybody really have been overlooked?

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.16 9:33

kaz wrote: The 'paedophile' angle so readily adopted and 'thrown out there' by Gerry McCann for all to digest always seemed to me like a veiled threat to any interested parties following the events. Maybe I'm being fanciful but to me it seems reasonable. Did the cover-up step up a notch after his 'the paedophiles have taken her' outburst? Such a strange thing to say so soon after the disappearance.

The paedophile angle was pursued at every opportunity by the McCanns and their advisers.

Even four years later, when Kate wrote her book, it is there on page after page, not forgetting her vision of Madeleine's 'perfect' genitals being 'torn apart'.

Within less than a week, the self-promoting Ray Wyre, owner and Director of the controversial sex offender clinic, Gracewell, had published articles pontificating on what the paedophile might now be doing to Madeleine. A few months later, the McCanns spent a whole day with the Wyres. As we now know, Wyre was a witchcraft- and sex-obsessed pervert whose name appears right near the top of the Elm House guest list [see Operation Fernbridge thread], along with other child sex offenders >>>

"HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT".

As early as July 2007, the McCanns were enjoying, quote, 'strawberry vodkas' and 'large glasses of brandy' with serial sex offender Sir Clement Freud.

Paedophiles like Raymond Hewlett and a gypsy gang leader were relentlessly pumped by the McCanns and their advisers as the probable abductor.

Child sexual abuse expert Jim Gamble has stuck closer to the McCanns than a brother for 9 years and has always insisted that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile.
And then we have the three controversial photos being discussed on this thread.

The 'paedophile angle' can hardly be ignored

by Guest 10.11.16 9:55

Tony Bennett wrote:

Even four years later, when Kate wrote her book, it is there on page after page, not forgetting her vision of Madeleine's 'perfect' genitals being 'torn apart'.

I still can't believe she wrote that.

Did she have anyone advising/editing?

by JRP 10.11.16 11:52

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, I'm probably telling you something you already know; but at 1.58 into the video, the "floorboards photo" sits in a nice frame on Kate McCann's desk as she uses the phone, which gives me the impression that she likes the photo. It is angled, not towards where she sits so she can see it while she works, but towards the camera which films her. The photo is very prominent in the shot, it may have been purposefully angled to be seen by the viewer. Therefore, this photo is important enough to make 2 appearances in one short video.

Personally, I don't think the "make-up" photo was taken by the same person who took the "floorboards photo", or the for that matter the "ice cream photo". While the other two images "floorboards" and "ice cream" seem to me to be inappropriate, at least there is a reaction, a smile; the "make-up" photo looks sinister. It's as if the relationship between Madeleine and the photographer is totally different. So while there are factors which group the three images together, age, hair length, hair bobbles, "the last photo" etc... I don't think they are a set. But that's just an opinion based on no facts whatsoever.

by Guest 10.11.16 13:04

Tony Bennett wrote:
So basically, am I right? - he had, as early as 4 May, a library of photographs and videos of Madeleine available, a library which perhaps grew after that...and which may have been the repository for hundreds of photos of Madeleine? Maybe, somehow, the Floorboard Photo, the Make Up Photo and the Ice Lolly Photo all made their way on to his FTP database?

Happy to be of service howdy

!

Yes, it would appear that way wouldn't it. Doug D has kindly unearthed Kate McCann's words about trawling through her camera memory which, as I thought, allegedly took place whilst Gerry McCann was being interviewed for the second time, so it was some days after Jon Corner compiled his stock of Madeleine photographs - where did he get the photographs from ?!?

I omitted to highlight what I thought to be a very relevant point from the last sentence quoted from Kate McCann's book..

"Helpers could post their material on a dedicated server via the FTP and use that supplied by others to create flyers, posters and so on. The press already had the password, which gave them access to pictures and video footage."

by Guest 10.11.16 13:09

Doug D wrote:
Gerry was taken in to be interviewed while I remained downstairs. I made use of the long wait I anticipated by sitting down with a notebook, pen and my camera, containing dated photographs of the holiday, and trying to write a detailed account of everything that had happened the week before’

I thank you kindly for digging that out. The version of Kate McCann's book I've got filed won't allow the word search facility so it a bugger trying to find what I'm looking for.

It's as I thought, during Gerry McCann's second interview on 10th May 2007 - too little too late. It seems Jon Corner already had an extensive portfolio of Madeleine images. Why is another matter altogether.

by skyrocket 10.11.16 13:11

The 'eyeshadow' photo was released in mid-2010, by the McCanns, at the same time as the odd video made by Jon Corner.

Why they would select this photo in particular to remind people of their daughter is difficult to fathom. Personally, if this had been a photo of my child, it would have been deleted/thrown away - it certainly wouldn't have been one for any family album, never mind singled out for international press release. The Mcs cannot both be so blind to its undertones and inappropriateness in portraying a 3 year old child, apart from the disturbing pose and expression. IMO, the eyes have been manipulated and it's questionable whether the blue colouration is actually eyeshadow. I find it unsettling to look/think about it for any length of time. There has to be more to the release of this photo than meets the eye.

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

Maddie plays dressing-up, weeks before she vanished: McCanns fly back to Portugal in bid to reopen case - and release new picture
By [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Updated: 10:24, 2 May 2010

Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance.
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. She had been left sleeping with her younger twin siblings, Sean and Amelie, on May 3, 2007.
Last week her parents returned to Portugal to put pressure on the police to renew their investigation, which was dropped in July 2008, and released the photo and a new video in the hope of triggering new leads in the search for their daughter, who would now be six.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Having fun: The new photo showing Madeleine in blue eyeshadow, beads and
The couple, both 42-year-old doctors from Rothley, Leicestershire, said their three-man team of private detectives hunting for Madeleine had discovered leads in police case files which had previously been dismissed.
In an interview with a Portuguese newspaper, Mr McCann said: ‘There are leads, clues which weren’t investigated. That information has been sent to the authorities.
‘We know that one of the leads was followed up and eliminated, and another was considered irrelevant. We don’t agree. I’m not saying we have somebody who saw Madeleine. But clues lead to other clues and we have to convince the police to investigate them.’

The couple, who will spend tomorrow with friends, would not give more details of the leads they want followed up, saying that could hinder the investigation.
Mr McCann added: ‘We are going to call for the case to be reopened. Can it be done? It can. Will it be done? I don’t know.’

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Kate and Gerry McCann pictured in Leicester ahead of the third anniversary of their daughter's disappearance while on holiday in Portugal
A short film released by the couple yesterday shows some of their efforts to find their missing child over the past three years, from handing out posters in Portugal to chasing up leads from their home.
The film closes with the message: ‘Thank you for not giving up on Madeleine. Together we can bring her home.’
Today the McCanns will join worshippers at their local Catholic church, despite Mr McCann admitting that over the months his belief in God has faltered. The couple have also told how Sean and Amelie had been talking about Madeleine.
Mr McCann said: ‘Sean talks all the time about finding Maddie and what he will do to the person who stole her.
‘They know they went to sleep and when they woke up she had disappeared. But they still don’t understand that somebody took her.
‘When they become aware of this I think they will want to know where we were. And we will have to explain to them that we were having dinner in the restaurant next door.’

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The couple said their three-man team of private detectives hunting for Madeleine had discovered leads in police case files which had previously been dismissed

by Guest 10.11.16 13:11

kaz wrote:@ Verdi
''............There's always a possibility that Jon Corner deliberately used those particular provocative photographs to illustrate that 'certain quality' he saw in Madeleine..''

Possibly, but it doesn't alter the fact that this disturbing photo had been taken at some time and maybe another venue other than PDL needs to be considered. Actually that scenario chimes in nicely with my thoughts on the case. Whilst I don't dispute that there may well have been unsavoury factors in the lives of the McCann family , I'm not convinced that Madeleine met her death in anything other than a tragic accident. The 'paedophile' angle so readily adopted and 'thrown out there' by Gerry McCann for all to digest always seemed to me like a veiled threat to any interested parties following the events. Maybe I'm being fanciful but to me it seems reasonable. Did the cover up step up a notch after his, '' the paedophiles have taken her' outburst? Such a strange thing to say so soon after the disappearance.

I don't dispute the gravity of the provocative photographs of Madeleine, that wasn't the issue under discussion at the time of my comments - I was toying with Tony's thoughts on how the photographs happened to be in Jon Corner's possession to use as the focal point for his short, seemingly futile, video.

You say: "The 'paedophile' angle so readily adopted and 'thrown out there' by Gerry McCann for all to digest always seemed to me like a veiled threat to any interested parties following the events. ....". I'm not entirely sure what you mean but I will take the opportunity to point out that is was not only Gerry McCann that gushed forth with the peadophile angle and no, I don't think a cover-up stepped up a notch at any specific time. It was in full swing (not to be misconstrued) right from the start when diplomats; lawyers; PR pundits; media personalities; UK government media monitors; UK police to name but a few, at one fell swoop all descended on the Ocean Club Praia da Luz between Friday 4th May and Saturday 5th May 2007, with a bevy of contingents arriving the the following week.

I agree, it does seem rather contrived to be shouting 'paedophile' from the rooftops before a search had even commenced by the local police and community but then, I guess it added impetus to the abduction scenario and paved the way for the long term agenda.

NB: I think Jon Corner's words were actually 'that special quality' not 'that certain quality' as I previously wrote. If I remember rightly, he thought she was unique!?! Now that is something I would seriously worry about, coming from a bloke outside the nuclear family environs.

by worriedmum 10.11.16 13:13

re:the comments that the make-up is too carefully applied to be done by a three year old- I have read opinions that this NOT make-up but is actually colour photo-shopped on to the image. I certainly think that there are areas of darkness between the ears and shoulders which IMO look as if they have been blocked in,especially where there is the strange kink in the neck.

The neck area is very uneven in colour-why would that be?Also look under the eyes. I find it helps to view the image upside-down, so that the eye is not distracted by the overall effect.

I do not remember reading that the photo was taken on holiday at all. I do seem to remember (Vanity Fair?)that it was done at home by a 'visiting beautician' anyone else remember that?

by JRP 10.11.16 13:51

worriedmum wrote:re:the comments that the make-up is too carefully applied to be done by a three year old- I have read opinions that this NOT make-up but is actually colour photo-shopped on to the image. I certainly think that there are areas of darkness between the ears and shoulders which IMO look as if they have been blocked in,especially where there is the strange kink in the neck.

The neck area is very uneven in colour-why would that be?Also look under the eyes. I find it helps to view the image upside-down, so that the eye is not distracted by the overall effect.

I do not remember reading that the photo was taken on holiday at all. I do seem to remember (Vanity Fair?)that it was done at home by a 'visiting beautician' anyone else remember that?

I have said in another thread, earlier this year, that the eye shadow is "Photo-shopped". The reason I think it isn't a straight untouched photo is the eyelashes seem to disappear into the blue on the eye lids.
There might be two different scenarios. 1) It may be real eye shadow, but has been smoothed out in Photoshop. The smoothing process has taken the fine tips from the eye lashes 2) There was no eye shadow in the original, and the blue colour we see has been painted on later using Photoshop, whoever did it, sprayed virtual paint over the tips of the eye lashes.

I guess the argument against the image being tampered with, would be saying it's simply an out of focus shot, and that is possible, but her hair is sharper that her eye lashes which makes me think that isn't the case.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.16 14:09

worriedmum wrote:re: the comments that the make-up is too carefully applied to be done by a three-year-old - I have read opinions that this [is] NOT make-up but is actually colour photo-shopped on to the image. I certainly think that there are areas of darkness between the ears and shoulders which IMO look as if they have been blocked in, especially where there is the strange kink in the neck.

The neck area is very uneven in colour - why would that be? Also look under the eyes. I find it helps to view the image upside-down, so that the eye is not distracted by the overall effect.

REPLY: Of all the items which suggest that an adult must have 'made up' Madeleine, the 'blue eyeshadow' argument is the least persuasive.

As it happens, I don't in the least buy the claims that either the eyeshadow or anything else in that photo has been photoshopped. I'm not even sure that the photo on this thread is the original one - all sorts of effects can nbe produced when an image is copies or, e.g. altered for size or colour contrast etc.

[ @ JRP Having just read your comments above, I think you may accept that someone has applied blue eyeshadow to Madeleiene, but that we see the effects that we see because of some kind of imperfection or corruption in the process of reproducing the photo. See below for why I don't think it matters too much either way ]

But, OK, let me concede for a moment that Madeleine may not have blue eyeshadow on her.

What does that leave?

1. A hair bead - applied by an adult

2. A necklace - put on her by an adult

3. Lipstick - applied by an adult.

Therefore there can be no doubt that, sometime before this highly controversial photo was shot, an adult had carefully dressed Madeleine up with a hair bead, necklace and lipstick.

As dozens of people immediately recognised, she was dressed up like a 'Lolita' (their words, not mine).

I do not remember reading that the photo was taken on holiday at all. I do seem to remember (Vanity Fair?) that it was done at home by a 'visiting beautician' - anyone else remember that?

REPLY: The fact is that we have two entirely different stories about:

1. (as you say) A visiting beautician did it, or

2. It happened on a holiday when Madeleine was playing with Mummy's make-up box.

Apart from the fact that these are two entirely contradictory accounts, the scenarios are wholly different in another obvious way. With (1), Madeleine has been carefully made up by a professional (let's recall that she was THREE YEARS OLD at the time, or with (2) she just applied everything herself - necklace, hairbead, lipstick and all.

Let us think back to another occasion in this case where we have two wholly contradictor stories about the same event: the alleged visit of Dr David Payne to see Dr Kate McCann at 6.30pm on Thursday 3 May. There were at least 20 contradictions between the two accounts. Nothing was the same.

So we had three choices:

A - Payne was untruthful

B - Kate McCann was untruthful, or

C - Both were untruthful.

There are no other possibilities.

And so in this case we have basically these three possibilities:

X - A visiting beautician did it at home

Y - Madeleine did it herself on holiday, or

Z - This happened in Praia da Luz in the week 28 April to 5 May 2007 and the McCanns have not told us the truth about it

by JRP 10.11.16 15:28

Tony Bennett wrote:
worriedmum wrote:re: the comments that the make-up is too carefully applied to be done by a three-year-old - I have read opinions that this [is] NOT make-up but is actually colour photo-shopped on to the image. I certainly think that there are areas of darkness between the ears and shoulders which IMO look as if they have been blocked in, especially where there is the strange kink in the neck.

The neck area is very uneven in colour - why would that be? Also look under the eyes. I find it helps to view the image upside-down, so that the eye is not distracted by the overall effect.

REPLY: Of all the items which suggest that an adult must have 'made up' Madeleine, the 'blue eyeshadow' argument is the least persuasive.

As it happens, I don't in the least buy the claims that either the eyeshadow or anything else in that photo has been photoshopped. I'm not even sure that the photo on this thread is the original one - all sorts of effects can nbe produced when an image is copies or, e.g. altered for size or colour contrast etc.

[ @ JRP Having just read your comments above, I think you may accept that someone has applied blue eyeshadow to Madeleiene, but that we see the effects that we see because of some kind of imperfection or corruption in the process of reproducing the photo. See below for why I don't think it matters too much either way ]

But, OK, let me concede for a moment that Madeleine may not have blue eyeshadow on her.

What does that leave?

1. A hair bead - applied by an adult

2. A necklace - put on her by an adult

3. Lipstick - applied by an adult.

Therefore there can be no doubt that, sometime before this highly controversial photo was shot, an adult had carefully dressed Madeleine up with a hair bead, necklace and lipstick.

As dozens of people immediately recognised, she was dressed up like a 'Lolita' (their words, not mine).

I do not remember reading that the photo was taken on holiday at all. I do seem to remember (Vanity Fair?) that it was done at home by a 'visiting beautician' - anyone else remember that?

REPLY: The fact is that we have two entirely different stories about:

1. (as you say) A visiting beautician did it, or

2. It happened on a holiday when Madeleine was playing with Mummy's make-up box.

Apart from the fact that these are two entirely contradictory accounts, the scenarios are wholly different in another obvious way. With (1), Madeleine has been carefully made up by a professional (let's recall that she was THREE YEARS OLD at the time, or with (2) she just applied everything herself - necklace, hairbead, lipstick and all.

Let us think back to another occasion in this case where we have two wholly contradictor stories about the same event: the alleged visit of Dr David Payne to see Dr Kate McCann at 6.30pm on Thursday 3 May. There were at least 20 contradictions between the two accounts. Nothing was the same.

So we had three choices:

A - Payne was untruthful

B - Kate McCann was untruthful, or

C - Both were untruthful.

There are no other possibilities.

And so in this case we have basically these three possibilities:

X - A visiting beautician did it at home

Y - Madeleine did it herself on holiday, or

Z - This happened in Praia da Luz in the week 28 April to 5 May 2007 and the McCanns have not told us the truth about it

Just to avoid confusion. I said up thread yesterday that my opinion was that this photograph was taken on the PdL holiday. To add to that, I don't think the make-up is the work of a professional make-up artist. I know a few make-up artists, they turn out some amazing work. I also think that's a confusion of two professions, I think the McCann's meant visiting beautician rather than a make-up artist. But that's probably not important anyway.

I had no idea there was controversy over any other part of this image. The necklace, hair bead, lipstick are all actually there in my opinion, they've not been photo-shopped in later as far as I can see.

My comment was solely about the blue eye shadow and the eye lashes.

Whatever your view of the blue eye shadow, if you say it's real eye shadow applied by an unknown adult. Or as I think, it's real eye shadow and applied by unknown adult, but later digitally smoothed/touched up by possibly another adult, this was done before it's release, not afterwards.

The blue eye shadow is on the video, and whether the Mc's OKed this video or not, they haven't complained about it. In fact, they've justified it's use by saying it's Madeleine having fun.
This image was inserted into the video by Jon Corner, complete with blue eye shadow, if a copy was digitally enhanced or not, it doesn't matter. It's there to see.

by kaz 10.11.16 16:59

Tony Bennett wrote:
kaz wrote: The 'paedophile' angle so readily adopted and 'thrown out there' by Gerry McCann for all to digest always seemed to me like a veiled threat to any interested parties following the events. Maybe I'm being fanciful but to me it seems reasonable. Did the cover-up step up a notch after his 'the paedophiles have taken her' outburst? Such a strange thing to say so soon after the disappearance.
The paedophile angle was pursued at every opportunity by the McCanns and their advisers.

Even four years later, when Kate wrote her book, it is there on page after page, not forgetting her vision of Madeleine's 'perfect' genitals being 'torn apart'.

Within less than a week, the self-promoting Ray Wyre, owner and Director of the controversial sex offender clinic, Gracewell, had published articles pontificating on what the paedophile might now be doing to Madeleine. A few months later, the McCanns spent a whole day with the Wyres. As we now know, Wyre was a witchcraft- and sex-obsessed pervert whose name appears right near the top of the Elm House guest list [see Operation Fernbridge thread], along with other child sex offenders >>>

"HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT".

As early as July 2007, the McCanns were enjoying, quote, 'strawberry vodkas' and 'large glasses of brandy' with serial sex offender Sir Clement Freud.

Paedophiles like Raymond Hewlett and a gypsy gang leader were relentlessly pumped by the McCanns and their advisers as the probable abductor.

Child sexual abuse expert Jim Gamble has stuck closer to the McCanns than a brother for 9 years and has always insisted that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile.
And then we have the three controversial photos being discussed on this thread.

The 'paedophile angle' can hardly be ignored

Absolutely agree . As I said , whatever the provenance of the make up photograph the fact remains the photograph was taken and presumably with the blessing of the McCanns . My musings were more on the WHY the photograph was produced. What is it trying to say? It makes me uncomfortable and it obviously makes other members on here feel the same way. Was that its purpose to reinforce the 'paedophile angle ' first suggested by the McCanns? IF there had been any nefarious activities on that particular holiday I just don't see the McCanns pointing public perception in that direction. ........................unless as I say it was a veiled threat to those ' in the club' who could help him out of a sticky situation .I'd go further and I know this won't be a popular observation but don't you think it's odd that despite all the obvious inside help the McCanns received , the dogs were let loose in 5A to completely demolish the McCanns' version of events? Is it possible that Gerry was feeling a little over confident with himself and needed slapping down? Knowledge is power as they say. As always, my musings only.

by worriedmum 10.11.16 22:11

i still haven't seen a source for the suggestion that this make-up was applied ON HOLIDAY

by Guest 10.11.16 22:58

worriedmum wrote:i still haven't seen a source for the suggestion that this make-up was applied ON HOLIDAY

I for one didn't ignore your question. I've had a cursory look but can only find press reports relating to the subject which amount to little or nothing.

Had a vague thought that it was mentioned in Kate McCann's, sorry Healy's, book but can't find anything so far. If at some stage I find any reference to the claim I'll let you know - or if someone can beat me to the post so much the better, I tire of reading that atrocious 'version of the truth'!

by **Tony Bennett** 11.11.16 0:15

Verdi wrote:
worriedmum wrote:I still haven't seen a source for the suggestion that this make-up was applied ON HOLIDAY
I for one didn't ignore your question. I've had a cursory look but can only find press reports relating to the subject which amount to little or nothing.

Had a vague thought that it was mentioned in Kate McCann's, sorry Healy's, book but can't find anything so far. If at some stage I find any reference to the claim I'll let you know - or if someone can beat me to the post so much the better, I tire of reading that atrocious 'version of the truth'!

I have collated what I can find tonight about what has been said officially about the Make Up Photo. As I think is clear from what I’ve been able to find:

1 The McCanns made little comment about the origin of the photo

2 Their comments amounted to saying that (A) Madeleine was playing with a ‘make-up’/dressing box (B) she was ‘having fun’ and (C) it was taken a few weeks before their April/May holiday in 2007

3 I cannot find any reference at all to the photo having been taken ‘on a holiday’ except the one upthread by Grande Finale when s/he wrote: “The ‘make up’ photo was said to have been taken on ‘A family holiday’.”

4 Nor can I find any reference so far to a ‘visiting beautician’, apart from a CMOMM member three years ago who said it was a ‘forum myth’ (see below).

Below are the extracts I can find from the newspapers - and below that are a handful of the many comments that have been made here and there about this most controversial photo:

=====================

Daily Mail

Maddie plays dressing-up, weeks before she vanished: McCanns fly ...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Maddie-plays-dressing-weeks-vanished-McCanns-fly-Portug...
Similar
Updated: 05:24 EST, 2 May 2010. 51. View comments. Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as ... Having fun: The new photo showing Madeleine in blue eyeshadow, ... Most watched News videos.

Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance.

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.

PIC: Having fun: The new photo showing Madeleine in blue eyeshadow, beads and necklace
Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Independent

Obviously, the make-up game and the photograph were innocent at the time but, when the private picture is released into the public domain in these circumstances, something altogether nastier kicks in.

I know what picture of a child playing looks like, my parents have albums of pictures of my sister as a child playing with make-up, dressing up. I also understand when I'm seeing the deliberate sexualisation of a child. I also know which end of that spectrum that those images lie.

Daily Telegraph

The film also includes a new photograph of a grown up-looking Madeleine wearing blue eyeshadow accompanied with a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace.

Guardian

Gerry and Kate McCann have released a new video to mark the third anniversary of the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine, showing them attempting to find her over the past three years, from handing out posters in Portugal to chasing up leads from their home in Rothley, Leicestershire. It includes a new image of a six-year-old [sic] Madeleine wearing some blue eyeshadow, with a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace.

The Star

The McCanns also released a video on their hunt for Madeleine, which includes a new “grown-up” picture of the youngster.

Birmingham Mail

A NEW snap of Madeleine McCann as a ‘grown up’ wearing make-up and jewellery has been released on the third anniversary of her disappearance.

The picture shows the Midland youngster, now aged six, wearing blue eye shadow and a pink bow and gold necklace.

It is featured in a video which also shows footage of Gerry and Kate’s desperate attempts to find their daughter who vanished from their holiday apartment in Portugal on May 3 2007.

The video, produced by family friend Jon Corner, was originally shown at a fundraising event in London in January to mark the 1,000th day since the little girl’s disappearance.
PIC: The snap – taken weeks before Madeleine vanished – shows her wearing blue eyeshadow accompanied with a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace.

OTHER COMMENTS

worriedmum wrote on CMOMM, 2013:

I am shocked about this picture to be honest (I know there is "dress up" but the way the make up has been applied is not from a 3 year old hand, as the report says). I find it very disturbing, as indeed are many aspects of this case. I would also question why one of the most recent pictures of Madeleine before she disappeared took 3 years to be released

A ‘guest’ on CMOMM replied to worriedmum

I think you'll find more information here, worried mum...The "visiting beautician" story may be a forum myth.

A SELECTION OF OTHER COMMENTS

you maybe right about the makeup but it is not only that it is the "posing". I don’t like it

It is NOT just a photo of a little girl playing dress-up. It is a photo taken by a professional photographer who has taken ''odd'' photos of Maddie before

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

Yes, these photographs of Madeleine are not nice. The make up pic was bad taste. First it was claimed Madeleine raided the make up box and in Kates novel lol it was a travelling beautician that done the make up. Blatant [SNIPPED]

I think the look on her face is as, if not more, worrying than the make-up.
No way does she look like a child playing or having fun.

It's the fact that these photos of Maddie could never be described as cute or funny or comical. They appear to be simply photos of an expertly made up child who has been placed into provocative model style posing

Which 3-year old knows how to apply perfect make-up like that?

Something doesnt add up. That make up is not done by herself. an adult had done it for her. No child gets anything straight on their face at that age. I find it creepy that some adults had deemed it necessary to apply make up for her just for the home video...why cant she be filmed in her natural look?

So they are saying a 3 year old put that eye shadow and make up on

The Mystery of the Make-Up Photo - was it taken on the same day as the Last Photo?