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

It's over 27 months since anyone posted on this thread, and yet is not this one of the most intriguing issues in this whole case: when and where and why was this photo taken?


Here's what we do know about that photo. 

1. It has appeared only once, in a short, rather strange video produced by Jon Corner on I think the 2nd anniversary of Madeleine's disappearance, or maybe the 3rd.  

2. It is seen perhaps for 4 or 5 seconds, amid other photos, from memory, a close-up of her eating ice-cream and one of her lying on her back on what looks like a living room floor, her smiling face looking up at the camera.

3. The McCanns said that she was 'playing with Mummy's make-up box'.

4. That story does not ring true for several reasons.

5. The background to the photo looks like a yellow/ochre stucco wall, typical of Portugal.

6. Behind Madeleine is a doorway; to her right (though sometimes the image is reversed L-R) is what is almost certainly an outdoor thermometer, of the kind frequently found in Mediterranean countries.    

7. To her right is a curved blue shape, usually understood to be a plastic outdoor chair, again very typically found outside Mediterranean houses.   

8. Madeleine does not look happy. In fact anything but. 

9. She is wearing a hair bead, or something that looks very much like one.

10. She was also wearing a hair bead in the Last Photo which was taken on Sunday, not Thursday, as falsely claimed.

11. She is wearing a necklace. She could not have placed that around the neck herself. Nor could she have applied the hair bead herself.

12. She appears to be wearing eye shadow which, if she is, would likely have been applied by an adult

13. There are suggestions that she might have had both lipstick and eye-liner applied.

14. The length of her hair appears to be identical to that seen in the Last Photo.

15. Madeleine is also wearing a pink top which may be the one she was wearing when the Last Photo was taken.

What we don't know:


16. Was it taken on that holiday in Portugal?


17. What time of day was it taken? Obviously after approx 2.30pm when the Last Photo was taken. Obviously before nightfall. There is no direct sunlight on Madeleine. If taken on that Sunday afternoon or early evening, most probably the building was north or east facing.

18. How did this photo come into Jon Corner's possession?

19. Who actually took it?

20. Why did Jon Corner put that photo in his film?

21. Was that film actually approved/vetted by the McCanns before he uploaded it to the internet.

22. Where, i.e. at which flat or house, was it taken?

23. Who was resident in that property at the time? 

24. Is it possible that Madeleine died at that property?

In the light of all the above, it is reasonable to ask if this was the last-ever photo of Madeleine alive, and if so, it seems that she was not at her parents' holiday flat when it was taken, as the limited exterior of the building where it was taken does not match the photos of Flat G5A where the family was staying.      

A timely reminder - the Jon Corner video..

Madeleine McCann May 2010 Appeal



02:22 minutes



@ 01:15 minutes

Discuss ....

The make up photo is horrible. In the image showing Madeleine on her back, she has one shoulder raised in a coquettish manner. They make my skin crawl.

I would very much like to know what Jon Corner was doing with a portfolio of Madeleine photographs, that according to Kate McCann's book..

Friday 4th May 2007

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.

And then..

On the day after Sheree’s arrival, Wednesday 16 May, Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned was launched in Leicester. Rugby player Martin Johnson, the former Leicester Tigers skipper and World Cup-winning England captain, generously agreed to front the launch. We were represented there by a large contingent of family and friends and saw it ourselves live on TV in Praia da Luz.

Jon Corner had produced a DVD of photographs and video images of Madeleine to the soundtrack of the Simple Minds song ‘Don’t You Forget About Me’.

It was a wonderful film but very difficult for Gerry and me to watch. That evening it was shown at the UEFA Cup final at Hampden Park in Glasgow, which happened to involve two Spanish teams, Sevilla and RCD Espanyol.

What was Jon Corner doing with that inappropriate image of Madeleine?

Who what when how ?

I'm old, and have seen thousands of family photos, and photos of children on their own,  but nothing like those ^^. The McCann's could have given them to Corner for the purposes  of the dvd, but again - why were they taken in the first pace?

The make-up image, I won't refer to it as a photograph because I have reservations about it's authenticity, created much controversy - even the press and media had no choice but to raise an eyebrow or two.

If I remember rightly, at the time the image first appeared before the world, many people thought it inoffensive - of course those people could well have been the McCann support network. Beyond me how anyone could think the pictures innocent.

Go figure!

Lest we forget:

“So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd,” family friend Jon Corner says of the child. “So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some bastard picked up on that.”


Some bastard like yourself, for instance, Jon?

Or maybe this bastard?    


DC 1485 Messiah: "Okay. I’d like you to describe Madeleine to me. What sort of a child she is and you know how you see her.”

Dr David Payne reply: "Mm, err Madeleine’s err a very striking err beautiful child, I’d almost if I want a better phrase call her doll-like, you know she was very, you know I think, you know very unique looking child err, she’d got very pretty, you know blonde hair err in a bob, she was quite a petite err child and you know she was very bubbly, very err you know she was a very good child to, to interact with. She was very bright, you could have a lot of fun with Madeleine err and you know she, she was, you know Kate and Gerry’s, you know pride and joy. They’d had a lot of trouble conceiving, you know with IVF and everything and you know Madeleine was their miracle. She was obviously very unique with the fact that she’d got the, you know the iris defect err but you know she was certainly a happy go lucky child you know she was, she would interact with the other children very well, as I said on the other, earlier recording, you know she played very happily with Lily and you know indeed the other children. She was, you know, very, she is a very beautiful child and good fun.”

DC 1485 Messiah: "Mm.”

Talk about over egging the pudding! The DC's 'mm' was very telling.

Err used 8 times , you know used 17 times in that short paragraph alone , playing for time ? 

A sudden change of tense at the end from past to present - " She was , you know , very , she is a very beautiful child , and good fun ". 

Everything Payne says leaves me feeling uncomfortable , my gut instinct shouts " NO "

Jill Havern wrote:Lest we forget:

“So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd,” family friend Jon Corner says of the child. “So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some bastard picked up on that.”

It is at least possible that the bit highlighted in red was what Statement Analyst Peter Hyatt (and many other professional statement analysts for that matter) term as 'leakage' i.e. something that the speaker knows to be true and has, as it were by accident, leaked the truth.      

A classic recent example are these words uttered by U.S. President Joe Biden at a Democratic Party convention a few weeks before the 2020 Presidential Election:

"We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” 

This report is no longer available online, thankfully it has been saved by pamalam at gerrymccannsblog..

Maddie plays dressing-up, weeks before she vanished: McCanns fly back to Portugal in bid to reopen case -and release new picture

Original Source: MAIL: SUNDAY 02 MAY 2010
By Daniel Bates Last updated at 10:24 AM on 2nd 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.


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.’ 


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.

Another timely reminder..



The artist ^^^ Graham Ovenden

Posted by Tony Bennett - 4th January 2011

'MASSIVE CRITICISM OF VIDEO PHOTO OF MADELEINE WEARING MAKE-UP'.

Your comments

   Can the McCanns be thinking straight?

   Three years have passed since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and her parents are determined that the search for her should not slip out of the world's headlines. To keep the story alive, they have just released a moody video, complete with a musical soundtrack, which includes a photograph of the three-year-old wearing make-up and gazing into the camera. It is that image which, predictably, has featured in the media,

   It seems a bizarre and unsettling development. Clearly, Kate and Gerry McCann have been living through a nightmare of unimaginable horror and perhaps, even after three years, they are not thinking straight. If so, someone should surely have pointed out to them that, in a case over which paedophilia casts an obvious shadow, it looks downright weird when a photograph which has the effect of sexualising the missing child becomes part of the campaign to find her.

   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.

   What was the point of this exercise, apart from getting more news coverage? At a time when there is justified concern over Primark selling Little Miss Naughty padded bras for eight-year-olds and allegations that Playboy brands are being aimed at the primary school market, the circulation of this can only feed prurience of the very worst kind.

   Maybe it was a misjudgement, but it confirms a niggling sense that the McCanns' publicity–at-all-costs campaign has seriously lost its way.

   [url=http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com.... d-1961380.html]http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com.... d-1961380.html[/url]

   People these days are increasingly protective of practically ANY image of children, parents are forbidden from taking photographs at school plays, photos in which children are visible in background shots at tourist attractions have been confiscated etc. Practically any image of a child is seen as being of interest to those with paedophile tendencies. I don't claim to understand why this is the case, but that's the way that things appear to be.

   In my view, which is of course completely out of step with the mainstream thinking on these issues, a child wearing make-up, or adult clothes certainly does not in itself constitute a pornographic or inappropriate image. However, if a fully clothed child standing in a street can be considered material of interest for a paedophile, then photographs of this nature should certainly fall within the same category. I am male, and like practically every other male that I have socialised with since from the age of about 6, to a greater or lesser we have all been exposed to pornography. I'm not great fan of pornography, nor have I been exposed to a great deal, but I could certainly give you a pretty good description of the stereotypical images that the producers of this product tend to use. It's a definite genre, with a definite style, camera angles, lighting, model poses etc.

   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.

   I've previously critisised people for expressing these sorts of views, but when you see the three Madeleine pictures in that video in close succession you start asking: what's the probability that this is just some sort of accidental pose? I really don't like the answer.

   I'm not a photographer, nor a film maker, nor actively involved in the media, and so if I can pick up on these references, then Jon Corner [who produced the latest Madeleine video] most certainly can.
   I am getting angry now at the pro-McCanns folk saying that only someone with a diseased mind would see that the photo of Madeleine was inappropriate. 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 and clearly should never have been put in the public domain, as people like child expert Mark Williams-Thomas and Terence Blacker in the 'Independent' are now saying.




4. "Cannot see any reason how the 2 new images of Madeleine can be justified - given the scale of sexual exploitation of children & child erotica."

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

6. Am trying to find out now who gave advise to use the make up photo- so damaging- as I know what it will become

7. Have not yet seen the new Madeleine video but the photograph is so inappropriate & damaging on so many levels-ill advised again

8. I didn't realise this till I saw the pictures myself and thought make -up - 60 Reasons why the McCanns should never have published THAT photo (the 'MAKE-UP '/ Lolita photo) Image001_0004, and then had a look and saw that others were also concerned. I cannot think why they have thought it suitable to use these images.

9. some months ago I made comment about Janes Tanner's comments (repeated sexual innuendo) in her interviews with the Portuguese police. I stated it was almost as though she had no concept that to constantly joke/repeat sexual innuendo whilst in a police interview on a possible child abduction was not normal...she had no sense that what she was saying would not sound 'good'. It was normal to her!!

Now the pictures of Madeleine in make up clearly put on for her at the age of three. The same can be suggested. That the parents found this behaviour 'normal' and hence saw no possible problems with releasing such images. It is normal to them!!

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

11. 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.

12. If Madeleine McCannis still alive the Daily Mail are putting her at risk with that disgusting pic. Good parents would demand it`s removal.

13. This is very sick

14. This case gets more unbelievable as time goes on. I cannot believe that the press did not crawl all over the latest pictures -describing the photos a 'grown up looking' Madeleine without further comment just beggars belief. Even my other half who maintains only a passing interest in the case commented on the unsavoury aspects of the photos

15. There is tasteless, and then there is the kind of tastelessness that is just plain unpalatable.
Their advisors are not only completely useless to Madeleine's memory, but they are most detrimental.
Team McCann have got a nerve to lecture anybody on censorship. They need to start with themselves.

16. Yet I noticed that as well, very well applied eyeshadow as well and lipstick on a toddler, not really appropriate given what has happened..

17. what a weird photo to release of Madeleine wearing eyeshadow. Why not release something more appropriate??

18. reminds me of JonBenét Ramsey beauty pageant photos, that kind of images could entice sexual predators. Disgusting photos...

19. Try 2 imagine McCann & Brit media reaction had Murat being found in possession of Lolita image? But it’s ok for Jon Corner 2 have them. Hmm

20. The McCann's think Madeleine has been snatched by a paedophile - and then their good friend Jon Corner chooses to use these inappropriate photos of her in this video?
You couldn't make it up!

21. Absolutely sickening!

22. That makes my skin crawls. Its just so Jon Bennett Ramsey!

23. Justice Hogg What do you say about the make-up Maddie? http://ow.ly/1FU3U After all, you are her legal guardian.

24. The latest photo mccanns have released makes for very uncomfortable viewing. Alongside the Gaspars statements, something is very wrong here.

25. Oh my goodness, what mother would allow a photograph of their young daughter to be distributed on the internet like this, it just makes me shiver. Can't beleive what they are doing. Surely social services should step in if this is what they are up to.

26. I don't know which campaign is more dangerous for her, If this one with a 'Maddie lolita' or the first picture you release to the press showing the eye defect

27. IMO media promoting Lolita Maddie photo are promoting child abuse. Katie Price got slaughtered for doing d same with her daughter

28. Why would they do this, yes!!! why would they do this?…that is the question that needs to be answered.

29. Saw this blue eye shadow picture on Sky news and had to surpress the urge to vomit. Is there no end to the tacky second class behaviour of her parents and the likes of Jon Corner. Is it humanly possible, that this is what has become of the memory of Madeleine Mccann, whether alive or possibly deceased. Is there no limit to the injustices done to this little girl.

30. It's not the fact that she's wearing make up that's the problem. Most tiny tots like to play at being grown up. My daughters did when they were kids. It's cute and funny to see them and their terribly comical attempts at applying mummy's make up.

31. It's the fact that these photo's 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. There is no cuteness about them, no fun. No natural smiling or laughing.

32. They are disturbing....

33. Clearly she didn't put it on herself (my 9 and 12 year old daughters are not even as adept as this at putting on make up. Or my wife for that matter).

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

35. Now, that would be considered a good one if done by 7 or 8 year old, but for 3 year old, no way they can do even that.

36. At least most three year olds I know doddle lipstick on their cheeks in addition to lips because they cannot aim properly, also they dont understand the signficant/purpose of each make up. The 3 year olds I know usually mess with powder, perfume, or lipstick rarely shadows because they dont know how to aim at the eye lids.

37. 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?

38. So they are saying a 3 year old put that eye shadow and make up on, how is this video helping her? there is something not right with this video, i'm convinced!

39. Still do not understand the purpose of the photo with the blue eyeshadow.
Anybody noticed that on this said photo, the right side of the background seems to show the
same wall than the wall in the new released video. Right in the beginning the video shows Praia de Luz and one can see wall very similar to the photo. So was the photo taken while on holiday?
Is the photo meant to remember somebody who was there, when the photo was taken?

40. I'm looking at her hair. The fringe is kind of grown out and comes to beneath her eyes, just like in "the last photo". If you look at pictures of her a few weeks before, in Donegal, her fringe isn't that long. If it was taken before the holiday, it must have been JUST before IMO.

41. It is a year since Jacqui Smith invited the TV psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos to head a 'fact-finding' review. Her report describes a world where young girls who can barely walk are first cajoled into wearing high heels and T-shirts with Playboy motifs, before progressing into a grim future dominated by an internet-based youth culture that pressurises them into dress and behaviour which defines them overwhelmingly as sexual objects.

42. These people are beyond contempt. How do staff at CEOP look their own children in the eye, or sleep at night ? I am disgusted to be British

43. Does Jim Gamble CEOPapprove of Lolita picture of Madeleine McCann? Will he b updating CEOPwebsite with the picture?

44. If CEOP endorse this http://tiny.cc/evy3a PR for a supposed missing child then their role in child protection has to be questioned!

45. Where is theC EOPpanic button to report this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhACS6ck-Dw&feature=related Wearing makeup! FGS!

46. could it be the internet paedo hunter CEOPUK Jim Gamble advising the McCanns?

47. For what its worth, I'm not convinced this photo is of Madeleine - someone said recently on another forum that anything put out by TM should be never be taken at face value, after 3 years I think many of us are all too familiar with the smoke and mirrors games they play. I don't know what they hope to achieve by releasing this photo, perhaps they are so confident that they will not be challenged about anything that they are starting to push the boundaries or, are could it be that they are seriously starting to lose the plot? What I do know is that it is imperative that Jim Gamble, as head of CEOP, speaks out and makes it clear that his organisation does not endorse the McCanns' decision to use this unsettling photo in their campaign - should he stay silent on this matter it is confirmation, imo, that his allegiance to the McCanns is as strong as ever.

48. Jim Gamble and latest McCann pic – you`ve got to see the funny side.

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

50. It is all becoming surreal, and near unbearable.

51. Nothing in this case has upset me quite as much as this. I am blessed with two daughters who are the light of my life; there is no way I could bring myself to treat them in this manner. Is there any other mother out there who would invite the world to peruse such a suggestive picture of her beloved child, while claiming that that child has been abducted, presumably by a paedophile?

52. These photos of a made-up, posed Madeleine turn my stomach. Poor little mite.

53. The picture is an obvious and not very good photo-shop type job.
Why would they do this?

54. People have been speculating that the latest Maddie picture has been photo-shopped.
They've been focusing mostly on the eye area.
Now, I haven't a clue about these things - but whilst magnifying the picture to get a better look - noticed that one side of her neck looks a bit strange.

55. Does this normally happen when you magnify a pic?

56. Look closely at the photo of made-up Madeleine with a picture editing program.
Magnify it to 400%
a- The girl on the photo has no eyelashes. Colour has been digitally added on top, hiding them. Compare with another pic of Madeleine, she has noticeable eyelashes, which have now disappeared.
b- No trace of coloboma
c- Two obvious brush tool traces above the eye on the right of the pic.
d- pixels of the face (very smooth) do not match pixels outside the face.
e- compare eyebrows on the pic with eyebrows on another photo of Madeleine. They don't match.
There are other mismatches.

57. When you think about it the lovely Kate probably pays a small fortune for her cosmetics so it is very unlikely that a three year old would be allowed to play with them, so what we have left is old make up. Does anyone remember a few years back when us girls were warned to discard our old make after a certain time because it becomes out of date and may cause a reaction – yes Kate cosmetics now come with a sell by date. So it is unlikely that the child of two doctors would be playing around with old make up, but then again this is the same couple who claim to carry the soiled nappies of two year olds in the same car boot as their badly packed up fresh meat. Is all of this within the boundaries of responsible parenting? So Kate, did the press lie?, is this a false photo? or was that little girl allowed to play with old make-up that should have been discarded? Even then, If Maddie applied that herself she must be a genius. Pull the other one.

58. What little girl aged 3 buys make up? and mothers do have the authority to say whether they can wear it or not.

59. Jesus, we've gone through decades of fighting for equality only to turn little girls into young woman before they reach puberty. What went wrong?

60. And whoever decided to put out that photo certainly was thinking straight.
In fact if I may say so the person is rather stupid to think that could make a change to the search.
But of course I forgot it was never about the search, it was about marketing Maddie.

61. How did Jon Corner happen to be around on that day she was messing around with make up that he was ever ready to make the home video?

62. Most importantly, why the need to release such a video? Does it enhance the search? I shouldnt think so. In fact it makes it worst. Who in their right mind searching for their child would release that kind of pic? It's sending the wrong message because people looking out for a child will naturally expect to be looking for a nutural looking 6 year old and not a mini adult.

63. Wouldn't the most effective video appeal be, after all this time, one where the McCanns directed a message to Madeleine and her abductor/s. Surely a heartfelt direct appeal/plea would work far better.

64. Seriously cannot get my head around this new video, it does nothing except promote images of Madeleine that would appeal to plenty of paedophiles ...beggars belief, it really does

ENDS

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1912-60-reasons-why-the-mccanns-should-never-have-published-that-photo-the-make-up-lolita-photo#45151

Then there is a reflection of the story by the intelligent tabloid [sic] #makesyerfonkdunnit..

Madeleine McCann make-up pic aids hunt on third anniversary of disappearance

A haunting new picture of Madeleine McCann has been released – showing her after she raided a make-up box.

ByVictoria MurphyRoyal correspondent

00:00, 3 May 2010Updated11:44, 30 Jan 2012



A haunting new picture of Madeleine McCann has been released – showing her after she raided a make-up box.

Her heartbroken parents have made the striking image available to mark today’s third anniversary of her tragic disappearance.

Taken just weeks before she vanished during a family holiday in Portugal aged just three, it shows her posing in blue eyeshadow wearing a pink bow and a gold necklace.

Parents Kate and Gerry hope the photo and a new video will trigger fresh leads.

Hundreds of images of little Madeleine have appeared on posters and in newspapers around the world since she went missing on May 3, 2007, from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz while her mum and dad were with friends at a nearby tapas bar.

More recently, digitally enhanced images showing what she would look like now aged six have been circulated.

In the video, Kate, 42, and Gerry, 41, show some of the efforts they have made to find their daughter. It ends with the message: “Thank you for not giving up on Madeleine. Together we can bring her home.”

The couple, from Rothley, Leics, visited Portugal last week to try to persuade police to re-open the investigation.

They claim their team of three private investigators had discovered leads in police case files which had been dismissed.

Gerry says five-year-old twins Sean and Amelie still ask after their sister.

He said: “They still don’t understand why somebody took her. When they become aware of this, I think they’ll want to know where we were – and we will have to explain we were having dinner in the restaurant next door.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-make-up-pic-aids-218494
..................

What an extraordinary message does this report convey. This tabloid prides itself on it's investigative journalistic skills but this report is totally misleading - albeit very short in content.

Quite. Why do they want people to recognise Madeleine in that awful make-up, looking down, in that horrible pose? Why would anybody have seen her like that?

NO!!!!


THIS is what a young child looks like after having raided a make up box






Spot the difference Daily Mirror?

CaKeLoveR wrote:Quite. Why do they want people to recognise Madeleine in that awful make-up, looking down, in that horrible pose? Why would anybody have seen her like that?

that photo is disturbing, I don’t understand how can they normalise it, loads of people claim it was done by Maddie and you don’t see it, you basically have a sick mind….  

it is sexualising a child and it is wrong, simple.

Hi to all,  I know it's been a few months since this thread was last commented on (so forgive me if everyone has moved on and beyond) but I would like to ask a question if I may......is the closeup make-up photograph (shown several times earlier in the thread) a direct screen grab from the Jon Corner video?
A simple question I know but if it is indeed taken directly from his output then it may show more than a little duplicity on JC's behalf or on somebody else's.

P W.

Pogels Wood wrote:Hi to all,  I know it's been a few months since this thread was last commented on (so forgive me if everyone has moved on and beyond) but I would like to ask a question if I may......is the closeup make-up photograph (shown several times earlier in the thread) a direct screen grab from the Jon Corner video?
A simple question I know but if it is indeed taken directly from his output then it may show more than a little duplicity on JC's behalf or on somebody else's.

P W.

Yes  we all believe it was a screen grab from Jon Corner's video.

Never mind the fact that the Make-Up Photo is both bizarre and disturbing but also a significant clue as to what really happenedcto Madeleine McCann, the fact that this video was released at all is a puzzle.

The questions about this photo include:

1. Who took that photo?
2. Was it the McCanns or someone else?
3. Where was it taken?
4. When was it taken?
5. Why is the McCanns' explanation for this photo discordant with what we see on the image? (This *wasn't* a 3-year-old girl playing with Mummy's make-up kit)
6. Did the McCanns approve this video in its entirety before it was released?
7. Why was this image in Jon Corner's possession anyway?
8. Why did Jon Corner choose to select this photo when  he could have chosen so many others...
...and so on...

I'm with you all the way Tony. Apart from what I see as bruises, I know others don't see any difference in colour between the eyeshadow and the marks on/in the tear trough I see colour differences, which I will expand on if anyone is interested. however I do realize this is subjective.
My main point about the image is that ......if this is a direct screen grab then either JCs original image had been manipulated or his work after inclusion of photograph has been.
I say this as if you you zoom in on Maddie's left eye, right eye as we look at it then we can see that dark edge of the iris (I'm sure it has a technical word) isn't arced as in following a circular iris but is vertical, but more than this, it cuts through the tightline, through the lashes and cuts into the upper lid.
It may mean nothing in the great scheme of things but it does mean that line is/was added at some point for some reason.
P.W.