Did Madeleine have any strange health conditions?

by Carroll 14.10.24 13:56

Any help please?

by **CaKeLoveR** 14.10.24 14:22

As far as I know, Madeleine's health records were not made public.

by Carroll 14.10.24 14:47

CaKeLoveR wrote:As far as I know, Madeleine's health records were not made public.

Thank you. They were withheld by the Home Office or so I believe after being requested by the Portuguese police.

by **sandancer** 14.10.24 16:44

Madeline according to Kate , had colic which has her crying for 18 hours a day and having to be constantly carried ! Nothing mentioned by their G.P. !
Apparently according to Gerry she had nose bleeds , but he couldn't remember if she had one while on holiday ! Hmmm ?

by **AnneCGuedes** 14.10.24 17:51

After using M's iris coloboma as a marketing ploy, her father attempted to minimize its importance.

by **BerntS** 14.10.24 18:06

Maddie did not have a slit on the iris (coloboma), she had a fleck on the iris, just like Gerry correctly stated.
However, Gerry nor Kate corrected the media of this misinformation. Any person with a slit on the iris will be extremely light sensitive and wearing sunglasses all the time, as the pupil isn't able then to close properly and too much light will enter the retina.

The reason was, like Anne wrote, it was a good marketing ploy, the LOOK campaign.

I think the photos might have been manipulated to exaggerate the fleck to look darker, and thus appearing on photos like a slit.

by **AnneCGuedes** 14.10.24 18:51

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

by **BerntS** 14.10.24 18:56

Anne.
Gerry's police statement he says fleck on the iris. So he definitely intentionally used this misinformation in his marketing ploy and campaign.

by **Silentscope** Yesterday at 9:09

Directly putting an 'Abducted' child at increased risk of being harmed, or even disposed of.

Or did they already know that she could no longer be harmed in any way?

by **AnneCGuedes** Yesterday at 11:13

BerntS wrote:Anne.
Gerry's police statement he says fleck on the iris. So he definitely intentionally used this misinformation in his marketing ploy and campaign.

G actually must have said "brown mark in the pupil" (PT interpreter says "marca castanha na pupila"). He was speaking to a policeman, not to a doctor. But to the Lancet, he said "coloboma".

by **AnneCGuedes** Yesterday at 11:20

Silentscope wrote:Directly putting an 'Abducted' child at increased risk of being harmed, or even disposed of.

Or did they already know that she could no longer be harmed in any way?

The general behaviour of the MCs is from the start that of parents experiencing a dramatic loss but whose child is no longer at risk of anything.

by **Jill Havern** Yesterday at 11:43

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

think

by Justice for Maddie Yesterday at 11:57

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

Leaving No Stone Unturned

by **Nina** Yesterday at 12:03

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

Not a care in the world, walking around like a newly married couple on their honeymoon.

by Justice for Maddie Yesterday at 12:06

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

Not a care in the world, walking around like a newly married couple on their honeymoon.

And before that Kate cried on the beach for the media. WTF (Sorry)

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

by **CaKeLoveR** Yesterday at 12:06

Would they have been so joyous if there weren't a wall of wealthy, high profile people in the background, deflecting claims of implication?

by **Nina** Yesterday at 12:21

CaKeLoveR wrote:Would they have been so joyous if there weren't a wall of wealthy, high profile people in the background, deflecting claims of implication?

They knew they were home and dry with all the support going on in the background that to this day still goes on. All that bothers them now, well in my opinion Kate alone, is the guilt of knowing what did actually happen.

by **CaKeLoveR** Yesterday at 12:35

They are guaranteed that support for as long as they live, which is sickening.

by **Nina** Yesterday at 12:44

CaKeLoveR wrote:They are guaranteed that support for as long as they live, which is sickening.

And very likely even longer than that CaKeLoVeR. I just cannot see how any of us will ever know what the truth of the case is. It will be covered up for generations I fear.
That is just me maybe feeling very disillusioned.

by **CaKeLoveR** Yesterday at 13:32

I fear so; there may be a super injunction, super inaudible, D notice, gagging order in place, but how long can they last? 100, years, 300 years? If they can stretch out banning information being made public they will.

by Jojo1 Yesterday at 14:53

Nina wrote:
CaKeLoveR wrote:They are guaranteed that support for as long as they live, which is sickening.
And very likely even longer than that CaKeLoVeR. I just cannot see how any of us will ever know what the truth of the case is. It will be covered up for generations I fear.
That is just me maybe feeling very disillusioned.

Ditto. I am losing faith and hope with the whole thing.

by **Nina** Yesterday at 15:20

Jojo1 wrote:
Nina wrote:
CaKeLoveR wrote:They are guaranteed that support for as long as they live, which is sickening.
And very likely even longer than that CaKeLoVeR. I just cannot see how any of us will ever know what the truth of the case is. It will be covered up for generations I fear.
That is just me maybe feeling very disillusioned.
Ditto. I am losing faith and hope with the whole thing.

I think a group hug is in order. grouphug

by **crusader** Yesterday at 15:35

Come on now forum friends, don't get despondent, we will get to the bottom of it eventually, there are bound to be day's like today now and then, we must not lose hope.
The group hug is welcome Nina. singlerose