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

JR wrote:
Must have taken ages.
Saturday, Saturday, Saturday, Sunday

Maybe she was altering times and dates - we wouldn't want to mislead the PJ now would we?

According to Steve Gibson's feerie, when Gerry McCann told the PJ he didn't have any further photographs, he actually meant he didn't have any further photographs that he wanted to hand over to the PJ.  Conclusion therefore..

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

Verdi wrote:

JR wrote:
Must have taken ages.
Saturday, Saturday, Saturday, Sunday

Maybe she was altering times and dates - we wouldn't want to mislead the PJ now would we?

According to Steve Gibson's feerie, when Gerry McCann told the PJ he didn't have any further photographs, he actually meant he didn't have any further photographs that he wanted to hand over to the PJ.  Conclusion therefore..

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

I'm sorry, I only managed the first episode of the Steve Gibson show, but without subtitles it's hard work.

Was this in the episode where he plays a statement analyst or the one where he plays a body language expert?

JRP wrote:

Verdi wrote:

JR wrote:
Must have taken ages.
Saturday, Saturday, Saturday, Sunday

Maybe she was altering times and dates - we wouldn't want to mislead the PJ now would we?

According to Steve Gibson's feerie, when Gerry McCann told the PJ he didn't have any further photographs, he actually meant he didn't have any further photographs that he wanted to hand over to the PJ.  Conclusion therefore..

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

I'm sorry, I only managed the first episode of the Steve Gibson show, but without subtitles it's hard work.

Was this in the episode where he plays a statement analyst or the one where he plays a body language expert?

On this particular occasion I think he was playing super sleuth - or should that be souper sloof ?

A lurker on the forum has asked me to remind members and guests of a series of tweets made by self-proclaimed ‘criminologist’ and ‘child protection expert’ Mark Williams-Thomas about that ‘Make-Up Photo’.

When this video was released, there was a storm of protest on social media and in a couple of mainstream newspapers.

Among those to express great concern over the Make-Up image was Mark Williams-Thomas, who then made these five tweets in fairly quick succession:

1) “On the eve of Madeleine's disappearance I agree with the release of a new photo but question the appropriateness of the photo chosen”

2) “Have not yet seen the new Madeleine video but the photograph is so inappropriate & damaging on so many levels - ill advised again”

3) “Am trying to find out now who gave advise [sic] to use the make up photo - so damaging - as I know what it will become”

4) Jon Corner may b able 2 answer ur question on who advised the McCanns to release THAT picture. He's friends with Esther McVey”

5) “No response yet re who advised of the use of recent photo of Madeleine - as soon as I get a response will let u know”.


The lurker wrote to me:

“There is quite a lot of information that we can extract from these five tweets, and a number of questions arise:

A Even Mark Williams-Thomas, a noted McCann-supporter, went so far as to describe
the Make-Up Photo as: (i) damaging, on so many levels (ii) so inappropriate and (iii)
ill-advised. So much for those who keep on insisting that this is just a child enjoying
playing with Mummy’s make-up box (a story we know anyway is simply not true

B Job Corner is declared once again as responsible for the production of this
controversial video, and therefore by implication at least in part responsible for the
inclusion in that video of both the Make-Up Photo and the Skirting Board Photo

C Mark Williams-Thomas tweets that “Jon Corner may b able 2 answer ur question on
who advised the McCanns to release THAT picture”. He therefore ASSUMES that
the McCanns authorised its release. But did they? That has not been admitted or
proven. Moreover, when the video was released, the McCanns seemed to be caught
entirely unawares, and seemed at a loss as to how to explain it, coming up with
‘Playing with Mummy’s make-up box’. We can say that the video was made public by
Jon Corner, maybe with others. But we cannot say that the McCanns authorized its
Release.

D We are told as a fact that ‘Jon Corner is friends with Esther McVey. This then
suggests that there is a long-standing friendship between these three: Corner,
McVey and Kate McCann, since it is admitted that Esther McVey and Kate McCann
were friends from schooldays

E I do not think that Mark-Williams-Thomas ever found out whether the McCanns
authorised the release of this photo, nor exactly who did authorise its release

F We know that Jon Corner must have had the Make-Up Photo, the Skirting Board
Photo and the Ice Cream Photo in his possession in order to make the video. The
question remains as to how he got each one of them. Did he take any of them? Who
did take each one of them?

G IF, as has been suggested, the Make-Up Photo was taken in Praia da Luz, was it
taken by the McCanns or by somebody else. If so, who?

H In looking at the McCanns’ and Jon Corner’s friendship circle, we need to remember
that a year or more before Madeleine was reported missing, Corner’s daughter
Chloe was a Facebook friend of Catriona Baker, Madeleine’s nanny

I In one newspaper, Jon Corrner was reported to have said that he had ‘been to Praia
da Luz on several previous occasions.


I hope these observations are helpful”.

They have claimed from the start that she was abducted by paedophiles.
Could the reason to release the make up photo be to show the public how attractive she was for them?
It's sounds bizarre, I know, but I can't find another explanation to do what they did.

NickE wrote:They have claimed from the start that she was abducted by paedophiles.
Could the reason to release the make up photo be to show the public how attractive she was for them?
It's sounds bizarre, I know, but I can't find another explanation to do what they did.

I've said the same thing in the past - I don't think it's a bizarre suggestion, I think it's perfectly feasible. 

Friend and confidante Jon Corner produced the video that included those inappropriate photographs of Madeleine McCann.  In his words referring to Madeleine..

"So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd. So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some ******* picked up on that."

Can some-one please put a copy of the 'make-up photo' on the forum which shows Madeleine's dress? Some members claim it resembles the dress in the 'Last Photo'-but I can't see a dress at all...

worriedmum wrote:Can some-one please put a copy of the 'make-up photo' on the forum which shows Madeleine's dress? Some members claim it resembles the dress in the 'Last Photo'-but I can't see a dress at all...

I have not seen any dress either but if you take a close look below her necklace can you see the same pink colour as the dress in t.l.p.
[size=31]Same colour,Yes.[/size]
[size=31]Same dress, I don't know.
[/size]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Do you mean just in sight below the necklace? The straps on the pool photo wouldn't come that close to the neck IMO. It has a higher neckline, like the tennis t shirt or even the pyjama top

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. Agreed, my first reaction on seeing the shape and angle of the pink material beneath the beads was that it was part of a pink, round-necked style top or T shirt. I don't think the strap of the smock-dress would sit naturally at that angle. In the pool picture the straps sit on her shoulders quite far away from the base of her neck.

Didn't Kate make a point of telling us that she didn't have a cardigan for Madeleine on the day that she wore he pink strappy top\dress?   Why would she need to volunteer that information?  Could it be that Madeleine did, in fact, have a cardigan or jacket that day?  Obviously, she wouldn't be wearing it by the pool when it was warm, but the make up photograph seems a bit more shady.

This thread is primarily trying to pin down when and where key MM photos were taken. But the question also keeps surfacing on why the makeup photo was released; with it's clearly unsavoury undertone given the circumstances. For me, this is the key question to ask. At face value, it is highly illogical, but there are some situations where it makes complete sense. I'll offer an example, which I will preface by saying this is a purely hypothetical scenario.

If the photograph was taken by someone with abhorrent intentions, as marketing if you will, then the picture may have conceivably been shared with other individuals prior to MMs disappearance. One of these individuals, or someone else uncovering the photo and context, may later have threatened to release the picture and context, unless some of the MM fund was used to buy their silence. I.e. Blackmail, of the McCanns, who would have had to have been at least complicit in such a scenario.

In this situation the choices are very limited: Pay up potentially huge sums, which would in itself arouse suspicion, allow the picture to be released and denounce it as a sick hoax (or claim it must have been taken by the abductor), or release the image themselves in the least conspicuous way possible (maybe not even as a photo but as a brief image in a poor quality video released by a third party). The last option seems the only choice now does it not? Any subsequent blackmail attempt would then just look like a sick hoax by someone making implications about an 'innocent' picture in the public domain.

Again, I am NOT saying this is what happened, just that there are other scenarios where releasing the picture would be an obvious thing to do.

Good evening Mjc and welcome to CMoMM .

The controversial image of Madeleine McCann, now commonly known as the 'make-up photograph' or the 'Lolita photograph', was included in the infamous video released by the McCanns close friend Jon Corner..



The short video released by Jon Corner for the  Madeleine McCann 2010 anniversary appeal, also included other seeming inappropriate images of Madeleine, as can be seen above.

Before surmising possible scenarios for the release of the 'make-up photograph', it needs to be taken in context with the other inappropriate images included in the video.  This is not the release of one questionable photograph under scrutiny, it's the whole compilation produced by the man who appears to be custodian of all Madeleine McCann photographs.

"So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd. So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some ******* picked up on that."

Jon Corner

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Where's the thread on here that talked about the 'make up' photo being the 'last' photo as it was taken after she was dead.

loopzdaloop wrote:Where's the thread on here that talked about the 'make up' photo being the 'last' photo as it was taken after she was dead.

This is the thread loopzdaloop! 

Although I don't think it can be, or has been, said with any conviction that the photograph was taken after Madeleine died.  In my view a totally unacceptable macabre presumption without evidence.  I don't disagree that there is something very strange about the photograph but I wouldn't like to hazard a guess as to what without some evidence.

loopzdaloop wrote:Where's the thread on here that talked about the 'make up' photo being the 'last' photo as it was taken after she was dead.

PeterMac wrote this chapter about the tennis balls photo being the new 'last photo':   [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In the Jon Corner video, the accompanying music to the Madeleine photos is Dido' Here with Me. In the circumstances, even those could be construed to be ill-judged :

Oh I am what I am
I'll do what I want
But I can't hide
And I won't go, I won't sleep
I can't breathe
Until you're resting here with me
And I won't leave, and I can't hide
I cannot be until you're resting here with me

Verdi wrote:Good evening Mjc and welcome to CMoMM .

The controversial image of Madeleine McCann, now commonly known as the 'make-up photograph' or the 'Lolita photograph', was included in the infamous video released by the McCanns close friend Jon Corner..

link I'm unable to post

The short video released by Jon Corner for the  Madeleine McCann 2010 anniversary appeal, also included other seeming inappropriate images of Madeleine, as can be seen above.

Before surmising possible scenarios for the release of the 'make-up photograph', it needs to be taken in context with the other inappropriate images included in the video.  This is not the release of one questionable photograph under scrutiny, it's the whole compilation produced by the man who appears to be custodian of all Madeleine McCann photographs.

"So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd. So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some ******* picked up on that."

Jon Corner

Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Thanks for the welcome Verdi and the video link.  I was aware that a video was the source of the photos, but had never actually watched it, until now.  
On watching the video I also noticed another strange thing. At 1.31 you can see part of the photo of Maddie from 'the last photo'.  It's pinned to the wall with other photos and is partly obscured by the office chair where - presumably Kate - is using a laptop.  It's just Maddie's hat and top of her face but it's clearly the same photo, yet Gerry's arm - which should be right by her hat - is gone?  I can't understand why this would be.

Seems to a lot of trouble to have gone to airbrush his arm out of that picture and for no particular reason?

I'm new to this forum (which still seems quite vast), so apologies if this anomaly has already been explained or discussed on this thread or elsewhere.

And one final oddity is at 1.58.  Same desk with Kate sat at it, from a different angle, and there is the Skirting Board photo beautifully framed and angled slightly towards the camera as if to say "it is completely normal for a favourite close-up photo of ones child to be one where they are mostly upside-down" (without a climbing frame in sight).

It is a well established that facial recognition is significantly diminished when that face of the subject is upside down. (I would post a link to support this, but as I'm new here I can't as the site blocks it.) 

So by way of a completely non-scientific poll, does anyone here have any close-up photo of their child or grandchild on display anywhere (or know of anyone else that does), where the child's face is largely upside-down?

In response to both your posts [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]/529, the purpose of the video is lost on me.  Whatever, it's clearly staged by Jon Corner - he is afterall a film producer of sorts.

The images of Madeleine scattered around Kate McCann strategically poised at a desk that you specifically mention, are the same images as contained elsewhere in Jon Corner's video.  I can only conclude that Gerry McCann was airbrushed out as he was superfluous to requirements - let's face it, who wouldn't want to airbrush Gerry McCann out :)?  The poolside at 02:15 minutes..



Personally, I don't think there's much to be gained by minutely scrutinizing this video - the true reason for it's production is however another matter altogether.

ETA:  Your point however is not entirely lost.  Taking into account the image of Madeleine given to the PJ for official release..

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

.. clearly a younger Madeleine, in addition to the scores of other images released into the public domain - none of which are in any way useful to the 'search' apart from the Ocean Club playground and the Ocean Club poolside photograph - the most recent and therefore most useful images of Madeleine.

One could almost be inclined to think the 'search' didn't want Madeleine to be recognized.

Does anyone else see lines streaming down from Maddies eyes in the make up photo like tears have washed away make up and left tear stains?

Sarshy wrote:Does anyone else see lines streaming down from Maddies eyes in the make up photo like tears have washed away make up and left tear stains?

Frankly no - and that's an emphatic no !

The last photo ? Something that has been nagging me for many years (apart from the sheer incongruity of a father being involved in a family photo where he isn't even in contact with or looking at his kids, one of whom is actually missing from said photo) is this : get the picture up and have a look at the background , what do you see ? You see nothing. Why are there no others in the pic? There are no beach towels, there are no sunbathers, there are not even any personal belongings on any sunbeds in frame. How is this possible ? Either the pic was taken on a Saturday (changeover  day , hence quiet) or it was taken on another day when there was no one around. It wasn't taken on the day purported. Clouds or not.

Inconclusive, there's nothing to be deduced from empty sunbeds or lack of towels/personal belongings - it was the end of April beginning of May, hardly conducive to sunbathing and poolside leisure ..

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

What's being suggested here anyway? Even the wildest imagination can't be thinking the sunbeds were added or the subjects were added - added to what and where and when?

Watch the birdie - say cheeze.. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sarshy wrote:Does anyone else see lines streaming down from Maddies eyes in the make up photo like tears have washed away make up and left tear stains?

No.

Personally I wouldn't put too much emphasis on the content of the photo rather than the DATE it was taken.
      As for looking at the camera and interacting with his kids......I have family photos like that too where I (or my wife) is looking at the camera. That, IMHO, means nothing.

Reply to Sarshy yes the photo looks like tear stained or God forbid like she is drugged or dead.. the photo has been talked about on forum not as much as pool picture . .but I do agree it should be investigated it is not a picture of happy child playing with make up.. a case of hiding in plain sight maybe??

Cookiecat wrote:Reply to Sarshy yes the photo looks like tear stained  or God forbid like she is drugged or dead.. the photo has been  talked about on forum not as much as pool picture . .but I do agree it should be investigated  it is not a picture of happy child playing with make up.. a case of hiding in plain sight maybe??

Ah... the dead Madeleine photo... again.

Yawn.

Sorry Bluebag but it is not yawn .. the photo is distrubing yet the pool photo discussed more ... why?Is pool photo easy to digest and noone dissects make up photo because its too distastfull or real ... that photo reveals all ...its the one needs looked at they are having a laff in plain sight

Oh it’s been discussed alright, with the “thermometer” on the wall.

Search for them both