Re: "What's the evidence that Madeleine died on Sunday 29 April?"

by NickE 13.02.17 20:03

spacestar wrote:
NickE wrote:This was posted by Derek Spring today on Facebook.
He is a Pro McCann....but what is he talking about here?
Is he suggest that there was two Madeleine 4-5 days before May 3rd?

"IF,THE POLICE had come to see me when madeleine went missing ,as with me it started 4 to 5 days before she went missing ,why would I see a girl looked like madeleine ,got her name told it was going to happen ,holiday time ,told a friend 2 days before she is missing it was going to happen etc, what I have not told you is about the priests what I got about 4 weeks before mc, missing .this comes right ,so all the other things that has happened have come right ,right down to the latest photos of the couple who have her unless I am wrong .so are you telling me all of the other things are coincidence I think not. the QUESTION IS DO YOU WANT HER BACK"

Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but this posting makes absolutely no sense to me at all!

:)That's why I asked because English is not my first language.

by MayMuse 13.02.17 20:10

NickE wrote:
spacestar wrote:
NickE wrote:This was posted by Derek Spring today on Facebook.
He is a Pro McCann....but what is he talking about here?
Is he suggest that there was two Madeleine 4-5 days before May 3rd?

"IF,THE POLICE had come to see me when madeleine went missing ,as with me it started 4 to 5 days before she went missing ,why would I see a girl looked like madeleine ,got her name told it was going to happen ,holiday time ,told a friend 2 days before she is missing it was going to happen etc, what I have not told you is about the priests what I got about 4 weeks before mc, missing .this comes right ,so all the other things that has happened have come right ,right down to the latest photos of the couple who have her unless I am wrong .so are you telling me all of the other things are coincidence I think not. the QUESTION IS DO YOU WANT HER BACK"

Maybe I'm just a bit thick, but this posting makes absolutely no sense to me at all!
:)That's why I asked because English is not my first language.

Sounds tô me as if he is desribing a "psychic vision or a dream" ?
The photos of the couple. The podesta brothers.?
If the police had come to me, no you go to them if you have information.

Take with a pinch of salt!

----------------------

Yes, Derek Spring is a notorious so-called psychic - and we agree that his rambling post quoted above makes no sense at all. We have given psychics no 'house room' whatsoever on CMOMM, partly because hundreds, maybe thousands of them have come up with their impressions and idea and imaginations about what happened to Madeleine - and no two say the same thing!

It is manifestly a waste of time for anyone to listen to their ramblings.

And here's another very curious thing. How many of these psychics who pontificate about what happened to Madeleine believe that Madeleine died in the apartment?

None that we can think of. Every single one states their belief that Madeleine was abducted.

That's a second very good reason for ignoring their nonsense.

Let's get right back to discussing the evidence for and against Madeleine having died on Sunday 29 April - Mod

by June 17.03.17 15:49

According to the PJ files the repair of the shutter etc. did not happen on Monday April, 30. as stated in the main articel but in Tuesday May, 1.

02-Processo Vol II page 309 -310

...
"That that job occurred on 1 May and was performed by staff members Luis and Mario."
...

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

by Phoebe 17.03.17 19:28

Were the P.J. ever given the "permission to leave" records to examine? In any childcare situation which involves minors being brought to "outside" activities eg. school trips/matches, youth group outings to arts/ drama/ outdoor pursuits centres etc. written permission is routinely sought from guardians or parents for insurance purposes. In the case of the "Lobsters", children aged 3-5 were being brought along public roads near traffic and to the beach where accidents could easily happen.The sailing was a particularly risky activity with such young children. I imagine all parents were asked to sign consent for this. I Know my own kids, even as teenagers, were forever bringing home "permission slips" to be signed with the caveat " No slip, no go". Would these help confirm Madeleine's presence at certain activities? There were at least 2 beach trips.

by June 17.03.17 20:11

spacestar wrote:
Ashwarya wrote:This is a really interesting thread. Regarding the Make-Up Photo, does anyone else have the feeling that it may have been taken after Madeleine had died? I know this sounds really macabre, but the Victorians for example used to take family photos immediately after a child had died by dint of propping them up in a line up with the other children, not to convince anyone that the child was still alive, obviously, but so that they had a record of the complete family as it had been up to then. The make up photo is taken at such a strange and provocative angle that this seems a possibility, and as you point out it is a sad picture rather than one of a child who has "raided mummy's make up box"! I do apologise if this offends anyone, but I have always wondered about this.

This thought has crossed my mind several times about the makeup photo, but I didn't have the courage to say anything for fear of ridicule and being thought too macabre and morbid. This is the first time I have seen anyone else mention it, so thanks for that. I do think the child's eyes have a dead look about them in that photo, and the way her head appears to be held back makes it look very purposefully posed. I also believe the blue in the background is the shoulder of an adult holding her in their lap. I hope I am wrong in thinking this, but this case is so full of strange off the wall stuff that nothing would actually shock me anymore

To me it seems also as person post mortem pictures in this photo. I have only some indications for that but of course no evidence.
Because im new to the matter (a month) and do not have but basic knowledge of the multiple parameters there are in this tragic case, i would like to wait till maybe others would open the discussion on this point so we can gather the possible information.

My best regards from Switzerland and thanks for letting me join.

by **Tony Bennett** 17.03.17 21:16

June wrote:
spacestar wrote:
Ashwarya wrote:This is a really interesting thread. Regarding the Make-Up Photo, does anyone else have the feeling that it may have been taken after Madeleine had died? I know this sounds really macabre, but the Victorians for example used to take family photos immediately after a child had died by dint of propping them up in a line up with the other children, not to convince anyone that the child was still alive, obviously, but so that they had a record of the complete family as it had been up to then. The make up photo is taken at such a strange and provocative angle that this seems a possibility, and as you point out it is a sad picture rather than one of a child who has "raided mummy's make up box"! I do apologise if this offends anyone, but I have always wondered about this.

This thought has crossed my mind several times about the makeup photo, but I didn't have the courage to say anything for fear of ridicule and being thought too macabre and morbid. This is the first time I have seen anyone else mention it, so thanks for that. I do think the child's eyes have a dead look about them in that photo, and the way her head appears to be held back makes it look very purposefully posed. I also believe the blue in the background is the shoulder of an adult holding her in their lap. I hope I am wrong in thinking this, but this case is so full of strange off the wall stuff that nothing would actually shock me anymore

To me it seems also as person post mortem pictures in this photo. I have only some indications for that but of course no evidence.
Because im new to the matter (a month) and do not have but basic knowledge of the multiple parameters there are in this tragic case, i would like to wait till maybe others would open the discussion on this point so we can gather the possible information.

My best regards from Switzerland and thanks for letting me join.

@ June I guess you are the 'Aun June' who is also on the CMOMM FB thread and who has been introducing the idea that Madeleine on this picture may actually be dead. There's quite a lot of discussion on the subject there, with very mixed views, this is the link if anyone wants to go there and have a look:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

By a very strange coincidence, I was re-reading some of the old 'Sherlock Holmes' stories by Arthur Conan Doyle last night. In 'The Missing Three Quarter', a sad story about a missng rugby player, Sherlock Holmes, right near the end of the story, Holmes tracks down the missing player at a house in Trumpington, near Cambridge, sobbng his heart out. His young wife had just died of 'consumption of the most virulent kind'.

Conan Doyle then gives this description of her:

"A woman young and beautiful, was lying dead upon the bed. Her calm, pale face, with dim, wide-opened blue eyes, looked upward from amid a tangle of golden hair..."

I then decided to see if googling the topic of 'eyes open or closed on death' would yield any information, and actually there was quite a lot of information. These are some of things I picked up in a brief search:

* Both 'open' and 'closed' are common
* I couldn't find anything reliable on the percentage of people who die with eyes 'open' but I think it is under 50%
* Many people who die with their eyes open have them closed by the undertaker
* The eyes are usually closed when death occurs when the dead peron was asleep or at peace
* Wide open eyes are common when death occurs suddenly, when wide awake, and is known to be a feature of deaths where the dead person has been in danger of some kind or is fearful.

Looking one more time at the eyes in this (Make-Up) picture, they do look very dark, especially against Madeleine's pale face. I've seen hundreds of pics of Madeleine and her eyes never looked like that in any of the others.

And the story about Madeleine 'playing wih Mummy's make-up box' really does not fit with this picture

by 23 Librae 17.03.17 22:25

I have only recently seen this picture for the first time and thought it was a bit odd. I have just looked again after reading the idea in this thread that it looks post mortem and I do get that feeling from it.

I even tilted my monitor back to look at it from different angles and thought she looked even more lifeless. Something about that picture makes me feel very uncomfortable.If she is alive in the picture she looks a bit out of it, drugged even. The post mortem idea though has really intrigued me.

Is it just my eyes or my computer monitor or does anyone else see strange light purplish marks on her skin?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@23 Librae

You should find this of interest.

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

Mods

by June 18.03.17 2:05

aers

Tony Bennett wrote:
June wrote:
spacestar wrote:
Ashwarya wrote:This is a really interesting thread. Regarding the Make-Up Photo, does anyone else have the feeling that it may have been taken after Madeleine had died? I know this sounds really macabre, but the Victorians for example used to take family photos immediately after a child had died by dint of propping them up in a line up with the other children, not to convince anyone that the child was still alive, obviously, but so that they had a record of the complete family as it had been up to then. The make up photo is taken at such a strange and provocative angle that this seems a possibility, and as you point out it is a sad picture rather than one of a child who has "raided mummy's make up box"! I do apologise if this offends anyone, but I have always wondered about this.

This thought has crossed my mind several times about the makeup photo, but I didn't have the courage to say anything for fear of ridicule and being thought too macabre and morbid. This is the first time I have seen anyone else mention it, so thanks for that. I do think the child's eyes have a dead look about them in that photo, and the way her head appears to be held back makes it look very purposefully posed. I also believe the blue in the background is the shoulder of an adult holding her in their lap. I hope I am wrong in thinking this, but this case is so full of strange off the wall stuff that nothing would actually shock me anymore

To me it seems also as person post mortem pictures in this photo. I have only some indications for that but of course no evidence.
Because im new to the matter (a month) and do not have but basic knowledge of the multiple parameters there are in this tragic case, i would like to wait till maybe others would open the discussion on this point so we can gather the possible information.

My best regards from Switzerland and thanks for letting me join.
@ June I guess you are the 'Aun June' who is also on the CMOMM FB thread and who has been introducing the idea that Madeleine on this picture may actually be dead. There's quite a lot of discussion on the subject there, with very mixed views, this is the link if anyone wants to go there and have a look:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

By a very strange coincidence, I was re-reading some of the old 'Sherlock Holmes' stories by Arthur Conan Doyle last night. In 'The Missing Three Quarter', a sad story about a missng rugby player, Sherlock Holmes, right near the end of the story, Holmes tracks down the missing player at a house in Trumpington, near Cambridge, sobbng his heart out. His young wife had just died of 'consumption of the most virulent kind'.

Conan Doyle then gives this description of her:

"A woman young and beautiful, was lying dead upon the bed. Her calm, pale face, with dim, wide-opened blue eyes, looked upward from amid a tangle of golden hair..."

I then decided to see if googling the topic of 'eyes open or closed on death' would yield any information, and actually there was quite a lot of information. These are some of things I picked up in a brief search:

* Both 'open' and 'closed' are common
* I couldn't find anything reliable on the percentage of people who die with eyes 'open' but I think it is under 50%
* Many people who die with their eyes open have them closed by the undertaker
* The eyes are usually closed when death occurs when the dead peron was asleep or at peace
* Wide open eyes are common when death occurs suddenly, when wide awake, and is known to be a feature of deaths where the dead person has been in danger of some kind or is fearful.

Looking one more time at the eyes in this (Make-Up) picture, they do look very dark, especially against Madeleine's pale face. I've seen hundreds of pics of Madeleine and her eyes never looked like that in any of the others.

And the story about Madeleine 'playing wih Mummy's make-up box' really does not fit with this picture
______________________________________________________________________________
@Antony Bennet and all

After expressing my feeling there on facebook (yes, that's me: Aun June, not my real name) i saw that some others had a similar approach to this photo, the same here in the forum, as you see in the above quoted posts. And now you contributed also some important aspects that go in the direction of questioning this photo as a post-mortem picture. So i believe that it is not false to continue on this path hoping something usefull for the case could emerge..

Here are my notes:

1 Technics: According to discussion and analysis of the photo in other threads regarding technical aspects there are some inconsistencies in this photo. I do not extent them here, we can do this later, but in short there is some photoshopping in this photo that goes further than the usual adjustment which is in every photo we get to see (something we forget sometimes - there is no photo without photoshopping).

2 Form: The design as such: the figure pictured has dimensions, a specific position in the frame, there is a backround which is so and so, the colours, other objects that can be seen or supposed to be there, etc.

3 Comparison: to aspects of physiology, anthorpology, literature, photography (art, forensics, etc.) in order to collect info and pose an hypothesis as to how possible it is, that the person photographed here is already dead.

4 Integration: in the storyline

What we know

-This is not a simple session with "mum's make-up set"
-The photo is most possibly taken somewhere in PLZ during that crucial holiday possibly between Sunday, April 29 at 13:15 and Sunday, April 29 at 13:15
-The young person which is photographed died shortly after or possibly shortly before this photo was taken
-The photo was published 2 years after the staged abduction of the person and it was published among other photos of her some of whom picture real children make-up-sessions or dress-upschildren make-up-sessions or dress-ups.
...

What we dont know

-Who shot the photo? Who gave it to Jon?
-Where exactly was it shot?
-When exactly was it shot?
-Is the young person on this photo alive, druged, ill, dead, else..at the moment of the shot?
...

by June 18.03.17 4:41

June wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
June wrote:
spacestar wrote:
Ashwarya wrote:This is a really interesting thread. Regarding the Make-Up Photo, does anyone else have the feeling that it may have been taken after Madeleine had died? I know this sounds really macabre, but the Victorians for example used to take family photos immediately after a child had died by dint of propping them up in a line up with the other children, not to convince anyone that the child was still alive, obviously, but so that they had a record of the complete family as it had been up to then. The make up photo is taken at such a strange and provocative angle that this seems a possibility, and as you point out it is a sad picture rather than one of a child who has "raided mummy's make up box"! I do apologise if this offends anyone, but I have always wondered about this.

This thought has crossed my mind several times about the makeup photo, but I didn't have the courage to say anything for fear of ridicule and being thought too macabre and morbid. This is the first time I have seen anyone else mention it, so thanks for that. I do think the child's eyes have a dead look about them in that photo, and the way her head appears to be held back makes it look very purposefully posed. I also believe the blue in the background is the shoulder of an adult holding her in their lap. I hope I am wrong in thinking this, but this case is so full of strange off the wall stuff that nothing would actually shock me anymore

To me it seems also as person post mortem pictures in this photo. I have only some indications for that but of course no evidence.
Because im new to the matter (a month) and do not have but basic knowledge of the multiple parameters there are in this tragic case, i would like to wait till maybe others would open the discussion on this point so we can gather the possible information.

My best regards from Switzerland and thanks for letting me join.
@ June I guess you are the 'Aun June' who is also on the CMOMM FB thread and who has been introducing the idea that Madeleine on this picture may actually be dead. There's quite a lot of discussion on the subject there, with very mixed views, this is the link if anyone wants to go there and have a look:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

By a very strange coincidence, I was re-reading some of the old 'Sherlock Holmes' stories by Arthur Conan Doyle last night. In 'The Missing Three Quarter', a sad story about a missng rugby player, Sherlock Holmes, right near the end of the story, Holmes tracks down the missing player at a house in Trumpington, near Cambridge, sobbng his heart out. His young wife had just died of 'consumption of the most virulent kind'.

Conan Doyle then gives this description of her:

"A woman young and beautiful, was lying dead upon the bed. Her calm, pale face, with dim, wide-opened blue eyes, looked upward from amid a tangle of golden hair..."

I then decided to see if googling the topic of 'eyes open or closed on death' would yield any information, and actually there was quite a lot of information. These are some of things I picked up in a brief search:

* Both 'open' and 'closed' are common
* I couldn't find anything reliable on the percentage of people who die with eyes 'open' but I think it is under 50%
* Many people who die with their eyes open have them closed by the undertaker
* The eyes are usually closed when death occurs when the dead peron was asleep or at peace
* Wide open eyes are common when death occurs suddenly, when wide awake, and is known to be a feature of deaths where the dead person has been in danger of some kind or is fearful.

Looking one more time at the eyes in this (Make-Up) picture, they do look very dark, especially against Madeleine's pale face. I've seen hundreds of pics of Madeleine and her eyes never looked like that in any of the others.

And the story about Madeleine 'playing wih Mummy's make-up box' really does not fit with this picture

@Antony Bennet and all

After expressing my feeling there on facebook (yes, that's me: Aun June, not my real name) i saw that some others had a similar approach to this photo, the same here in the forum, as you see in the above quoted posts. And now you contributed also some important aspects that go in the direction of questioning this photo as a post-mortem picture. So i believe that it is not false to continue on this path hoping something usefull for the case could emerge..

Here are my notes:

1 Technics: According to discussion and analysis of the photo in other threads regarding technical aspects there are some inconsistencies in this photo. I do not extent them here, we can do this later, but in short there is some photoshopping in this photo that goes further than the usual adjustment which is in every photo we get to see (something we forget sometimes - there is no photo without photoshopping).

2 Form: The design as such: the figure pictured has dimensions, a specific position in the frame, there is a backround which is so and so, the colours, other objects that can be seen or supposed to be there, etc.

3 Comparison: to aspects of physiology, anthorpology, literature, photography (art, forensics, etc.) in order to collect info and pose an hypothesis as to how possible it is, that the person photographed here is already dead.

4 Integration: in the storyline

What we know

-This is not a simple session with "mum's make-up set"
-The photo is most possibly taken somewhere in PLZ during that crucial holiday possibly on Sunday, April 29 after 13:15 h (reliable witness, daughter of cleaner, who saw the girl)
-The young person which is photographed died after or possibly before this photo was taken
-The photo was published 2 years after the staged abduction of the person and it was published among other photos of her some of whom picture real children make-up-sessions or dress-upschildren make-up-sessions or dress-ups.
...

What we dont know

-Who shot the photo? Who gave it to Jon?
-Where exactly was it shot?
-When exactly was it shot?
-Is the young person on this photo alive, druged, ill, dead, else..at the moment of the shot?
...

by June 18.03.17 5:00

The following concerns the design of the so called make-up photo.

Here is the famous clip with GM laughing an the balcony. Below is a still of that clip, where we can see the uper side of a balcony chair (to be researched) which has a similar colour to the element we see on the ride side of the make-photo.

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

by **Tony Bennett** 18.03.17 9:07

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

I fully agree that on both photos we see a blue plastic chair.

All sorts of suggestions have been made about what the blue object is on the Make-Up photo, but I always said it was a blue chair from the beginning.

We can actually see part of the design of the blue chair; on the very right of the Make-Up picture we see a vertical line. I suspect that is one of three or four vertical lines on the chair. There is also a curved line about 1" to 2" (4cm) below the top of the chair. Maybe someone can find an example of exactly what type of chair it is.

The wall in both pics is what we call 'stucco' in English. But it does look a different colour: Make-Up photo - yellow or ochre; 'Gerry Laughs' pic - white-pink.

I can't help thinking that one of the best clues in the photo is Madeleine's eyes; they look very dark on the photo, and is the size of the pupil and iris different?

There is a starnge photo of Gerry somewhere wearing hospital clothes and with a weird expression on his faced with his pupils dilated. I can't find it at the moment

by 23 Librae 18.03.17 9:46

Every time I look at this picture I get distracted by the eyeshadow so I tilted back my monitor and covered her eyes. The bottom half of her face looks completely relaxed, no muscle tone, I also see a pale bluish or purple marks. I am having trouble unseeing it as a post mortem picture now.

Thanks to the mods for the links above I will read them.

by **Jill Havern** 18.03.17 9:48

Tony Bennett wrote:There is a starnge photo of Gerry somewhere wearing hospital clothes and with a weird expression on his faced with his pupils dilated. I can't find it at the moment

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

by plebgate 18.03.17 9:58

It could be a blue chair but I still think it is more like a lilo or surf board shape. In both pictures it looks as though the object is leaning against the wall/glass .

I don't think the picture looks post mortem. It's a strange picture and Maddie certainly doesn't look as though she is having fun to me.

Also Maddie's ears appear to be down around the chin area which looks most odd to me.

I don't think I have ever seen a pair of ears that far down the face before.

by **Jill Havern** 18.03.17 10:02

Tony Bennett wrote:We can actually see part of the design of the blue chair; on the very right of the Make-Up picture we see a vertical line. I suspect that is one of three or four vertical lines on the chair. There is also a curved line about 1" to 2" (4cm) below the top of the chair. Maybe someone can find an example of exactly what type of chair it is.

Interesting...I put "blue plastic portuguese balcony chairs 2007" into Google and came up with this:

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

Notice how many photos there are of the McCanns and Madeleine! I didn't even use the word McCann or Madeleine in my query.

There's also a chair like this:

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

by plebgate 18.03.17 10:14

If you look at the photo of Mr on the balcony the object seems to come up to a height level (or almost level) with his chest. That would be a pretty high patio chair, but it could be due to angles.

No doubt Bluebag will be able to help with that.

by JohnyT 18.03.17 11:00

plebgate wrote:It could be a blue chair but I still think it is more like a lilo or surf board shape. In both pictures it looks as though the object is leaning against the wall/glass .

I don't think the picture looks post mortem. It's a strange picture and Maddie certainly doesn't look as though she is having fun to me.

Also Maddie's ears appear to be down around the chin area which looks most odd to me.

I don't think I have ever seen a pair of ears that far down the face before.

Please not the low down ears again........just tilt your head back and look in the mirror......it's perfectly normal.
Also on the still shot of the video of Gerry, are we certain this was taken a few days after Maddie went missing?
JohnyT

by **Nina** 18.03.17 14:42

plebgate wrote:It could be a blue chair but I still think it is more like a lilo or surf board shape. In both pictures it looks as though the object is leaning against the wall/glass .

I don't think the picture looks post mortem. It's a strange picture and Maddie certainly doesn't look as though she is having fun to me.

Also Maddie's ears appear to be down around the chin area which looks most odd to me.

I don't think I have ever seen a pair of ears that far down the face before.

Hi Plebgate. Madeleine's ears seem so low down because her head is tilted back. She is looking down towards the photographer.
The very first time that I saw this photograph it sickened me as it shows a little girl made into a Lolita style image and she isn't happy at all. She isn't scared either. Her expression totally lacks any kind of emotion.
Some have said that she is already dead. I disagree with that as she is not totally flaccid as would be the case.
I will not print what I really think of this photograph regarding how and why and under what circumstances it was taken, other than to say it wasn't taken by a doting parent or carer to catch a fun filled moment for a little girl.

by roz 18.03.17 15:45

That child has been told to tilt her head back. That child has been told; ‘Now look down at me’ (the photographer.)
That child is not proud of how ‘pretty’ she has been made to look.

by Phoebe 18.03.17 15:46

Out of curiosity I've just shown the make up photo to someone who didn't know it was Madeleine and doesn't follow the case .I asked her to say what she saw. She put the child's age as between 8 and 10 years and thought that she was attempting to strike a model's pose - head thrown back, inscrutable expression, no smile, hair brushed. I then told her this child was under 4 and had been playing with mummy's make-up. She hotly disputed that, pointing out that if that were the case she would have had rouge or blusher everywhere and clown mouth lipstick, not carefully applied blue eye shadow and lippy. She felt the necklace was a strand of beads for a Christmas tree (which I hadn't thought of). She also felt the photographer would have had to be at least on his/her knees from the angle, so it was a carefully posed, very inappropriate snap. Were they trying to give more credence to the abducted by paedophiles story by allowing this in the public domain? I agree that the blue article is a plastic chair. Were these on sale in the U.K at the time? I've not seen them other than in sunny climes - all white, green, brown and black around my neck of the woods.

by Phoebe 18.03.17 16:09

Sorry, don't know how to add on to existing comment! She also pointed out, which I had missed, that the child is wearing eye-liner, clearly visible on the water line of the lower lid of the left eye and slightly smudged on the lid of the upper eye. No way did a child 3 yr old have such precision or dexterity. Someone "made her up" and took that disturbing snap. Poor child. It creeps me out. nah

by Liz Eagles 18.03.17 16:16

Of all the photos you have of your 'abducted' child why on earth would you choose to publish this one?

Perhaps that photo is in the possession of others some might say.

Perhaps that photo is a lasting memory of a fun day others might say (Madeleine doesn't look like she's having fun to me).

Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

What is clear to me is that there is no reason to publish that photograph of your child when you are desperately looking for her, that is unless you have been been advised to do so.

Speaking of being advised to do things, the McCanns seem to be blanketed in advice from just about every angle by UK services.

Goncalo Amaral advised them not to speak of Madeleine's eye defect and yet it went worldwide, was a campaign, 'let's all look for a girl with a distinctive eye defect', 'look into my eyes', to 'we didn't make much of it to be honest'.

That's one hell of a lot of expensive advice.

by roz 18.03.17 16:44

That’s what I thought also Phoebe re eyeliner etc. I have also been thinking that on being asked to tilt the head back, and look down at the same time, your face would appear expressionless or sombre.
But I do wonder as to why the photographer asked the child to pose like that?

by Cmaryholmes 18.03.17 18:01

I also wonder the same......and why would anyone think that such a haunting miserable image would be seen as a happy three year old having fun with Mummuy's make up? Only someone who is completely unaware of childish games and play could ever think that. IMO

by plebgate 18.03.17 19:16

Thanks Nina and Johnny T for your replies about Maddie's head position.

I still find something about the ears not quite right, maybe it's because they look big for a little girl and the (our) right side looks very flat and quite wide.

I can't quite put my finger on it but there's something about the ears that definitely doesn't look right to me.

by **Hobs** 19.03.17 0:07

The picture of Maddie with the blue eye shadow is not post mortem, she is very much alive.

Dead peoples eyes have a distinctive look about them.

Since at the moment of death muscles relax this also includes the eyeballs, eyelids and the rest of the face.
A dead persons eyes do not always close completely even if during sleep. they tend to stay partially open and the eyeballs tend to roll up very slightly plus the spark in the eye disappears and the eyes become glazed and over a period of time the pupils become opaque.
The eyes can stay open but you can see straight away the person/animal is dead, the eyes become literally lifeless
Undertakers will often put a stitch in to keep the eyes closed and to stop them popping open.

by tinkier 19.03.17 1:53

roz wrote:That child has been told to tilt her head back. That child has been told; ‘Now look down at me’ (the photographer.)
That child is not proud of how ‘pretty’ she has been made to look.

Every time I look at the makeup photo the first words that come to my mind are…what an indignant look. Madeleine is following instructions, but certainly not willingly. She looks upset and irritated, she wants to be anywhere but there in that moment in time.

by June 20.03.17 17:06

Dear forum, i'd like to tell you something. I began following the story of M. trough the internet since one month. It was through youtube and the films "when maddie died?". I then began also searching and reading on this forum here and also through the PJ files, namely the statments etc. Of course i did not nearly come to the point of knowledge that i found in this but also in other fora. I then was really shocked when i found that photo of little M. the so called make-up photo. And a started thinking and writing a little about it. Well, as i see now, it is not a bad thing to do, to start that late getting involved with this forum. But i think it does also not really help the case to just speculate about a photo. Therefore i would like to apologize to all of you who have done such an amazing trough the years work, showing to others like me, what are the real facts in this event and what has to be and hopefully will be proven by the P justice. I of course would like to contribute to your work but till i find out what i could do, i will stay with admiration for you and with the deep believe that the truth will sometime come to light. Best greetings. F.

by soundworks 20.03.17 17:19

is that somebodies fingers behind her head?

by Delmere 22.03.17 0:29

I've only recently joined this forum and find people's theories very interesting. Like many others, I do believe the 'make-up' photo doesn't look natural at all. No way would a 3/4 year old be able to use make up like that without making a mess. Going from this photo to the one by the pool - I have a job to believe that is supposed to be Madeleine. The child in that photo looks about 7 or eight years old and her hair is dark. Nothing like Madeleine at all. What do others think?

Mod writes:

This topic has been discussed extensively on CMOMM. This may help you get started and get an idea of general opinions.

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