At which HOSPITAL was Madeleine born?

by Bird131 03.05.23 16:28

In a previous topic about the birth of Madeleine, no-one produced any newborn photos (between "Day 1" and "1 month old"), taken in the hospital or soon thereafter at the McCann residence. Does anyone know with certainty, at which HOSPITAL Madeleine was born?

by Verdi 03.05.23 16:43

Not to my knowledge, the place of birth has never been mentioned other than the town.

I hazard a guess it would have been Leicester Infirmary - or NHS University Hospitals of Leicester .... where Gerry McCann worked/works.

For anyone who wants to flash the cash - can't do it myself even if I wanted to.

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

by Bird131 03.05.23 16:54

It's just VERY ODD ... no newborn photos. Guess a bit of detective work is needed.

by Verdi 03.05.23 17:20

Maybe but as I said before, why should photographs of Madeleine McCann's birth be in the public domain.

If it were only a case of a couple of suspects living far from their own environment with no local attachments, then such a matter might attract attention but the McCanns?

Madeleine McCann was born in Leicester, I don't think there can be any doubt on that point.

Then there are family and friends to consider, unless they were all involved in a mass conspiracy about Madeleine's birth, which I seriously doubt, they would have noticed anything out of the ordinary - surely?

Is it usual to take photographs inside a maternity ward? Can't say I've ever seen baby photographs taken inside hospital or outside hospital premises apart from Royalty - but then I was born before cameras were invented so how would I know titter

.

Back at home would be a private matter with friends and family - surely?

by Bird131 03.05.23 17:46

Any proud parent can't wait to be photographed holding their first-born child. That goes for the new grandparents as well. Hospital photos are something they can treasure and take home to display in the lounge or in their room.

by JohnyT 04.05.23 14:10

Verdi wrote:Maybe but as I said before, why should photographs of Madeleine McCann's birth be in the public domain.

If it were only a case of a couple of suspects living far from their own environment with no local attachments, then such a matter might attract attention but the McCanns?

Madeleine McCann was born in Leicester, I don't think there can be any doubt on that point.

Then there are family and friends to consider, unless they were all involved in a mass conspiracy about Madeleine's birth, which I seriously doubt, they would have noticed anything out of the ordinary - surely?

Is it usual to take photographs inside a maternity ward? Can't say I've ever seen baby photographs taken inside hospital or outside hospital premises apart from Royalty - but then I was born before cameras were invented so how would I know .

Back at home would be a private matter with friends and family - surely?

My eldest son is 39 and we have maternity photos just after the cord was cut, just as we have from my other 2 sons ( both over 27).......

by Verdi 04.05.23 14:18

Fair enough.

I'm old school, men allowed in a maternity ward during and after childbirth is not something I could support.

I still maintain there is no reason to expect photographs of Madeleine McCann's birth or very early days to be in the public domain.

As I said, if anyone wants to spend a few quid, it's possible to apply for a copy birth certificate and/or birth details.

by Pogels Wood 07.05.23 0:23

I gave birth to my daughter in 20O7 (which is why I initially shuddered at the McCanns first appeal). My daughter was two months old and to me the pairs behaviour was sooooo off kilter. Any hoo I digress, the point is that the day after I gave birth an official photographer sanctioned by hospital offered to take photographs of you 24 hour old child (for a hefty price of course). I think every mum on the ward that I was on that day requested his services. Just saying it's not unusual have really early photographs of your little one. However I'm not saying it's something one would necessarily want to disseminate to all and sundry but the Macs seem to like to proffer images of Madeleine so it's not beyond the bounds that they would have photographs of when she was new born. One could argue, why would they show images of a young child when that image looks nothing like the near 4 year child that went missing...
Indeed, so why did they disseminate images of a much younger Madeleine with an enhanced "eye fleck". Just saying and hello to all.

by Verdi 07.05.23 1:00

Indeed Pogels Wood, each to his/her/their own but the burning question is .... has anyone seen a photograph of Madeleine McCann after, or shortly after birth.

I think the answer is no - but as I repeatedly say, why should they. It's hardly relevant to the disappearance nor the investigation.

The only way to put an end to this speculation would be for some brave heart to ask the parents McCann to produce a photograph of Madeleine after birth, or within the following days - I think I can anticipate the likely response!

The images of Madeleine McCann produced after the event have been covered extensively, the rationale was and still is easy to fathom - new born photographs would not fit in with the defence campaign.

So much easier for anyone with true conviction to apply to the authorities for a copy of Madeleine McCann's births certificate - it will of course require payment.

Then of course their is the family and friends to consider - would they cover-up a birth to conceal a heinous crime?

I don't think so.

A belated welcome

to you Pogels Wood.

by Pogels Wood 07.05.23 1:14

Thank you for the welcome Verdi. As I said I've been totally anti the spin put on poor Madeleine's disappearence. I was feeding my daughter who was 2 months old when the first statement/appeal was launched, I saw it via sky news. At the time my overall impression was their behaviour was so off kilter that it didn't seem desperate, worried or even a bit upset.
The washing of cuddle cat doubled down as far as I was concerned. And I stand by my first impression. X

by Bird131 07.05.23 8:24

Comment made by Verdi ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]): If the friends and family were convinced that no "heinous crime" took place, then it would only be proper for them to give their loved ones their full support.

by Verdi 07.05.23 13:38

They most likely do give their full support, come rain or shine - they certainly did in the early days. Since then little or nothing is said by anyone to anyone.

I doubt the sister would have made an appearance at last weeks memorial service if she wasn't a believer and that old stalwart Fiona Payne read a poem.

Make of that what you will.

I still can't see any reason why the McCanns would share photographs of their new born before the world. Perhaps now with social media at it's apex but 16 years ago it was only in it's infancy - social media that is.

I haven't a clue who has remained steadfast or indeed who has stepped away. Family can be very odd when it comes to loyalty, they can distance themselves over trivia and yet close ranks over more serious issues - like child abuse.

by crusader 07.05.23 14:25

What has any of this got to do with Madeleine's disappearance? We know that she was born, why does it matter where she was born and if any newborn photo's exist?

by Bird131 09.07.23 22:09

Since no-one has yet supplied the name of the hospital where Madeleine was born ... or produced a 'new-born' baby photograph, this might be of interest in the meantime. It's a 57 minutes 2021 YouTube sermon by preacher Robert Breaker. Those with limited time can start watching/listening from 37:24 minutes until the end. Key to remember here is that it's 'interesting' ... maybe 'very interesting'.
Go to: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Admin, if this is 'inappropriate', then please remove.