60 Reasons why the McCanns should never have published THAT photo (the 'MAKE-UP '/ Lolita photo)

Whatever a three year old girl made of wearing make up, it was 'competent' adults who released the pictures. I understand MW's points about who chose it and authorised it. This is not a picture of your daughter posted on face book at a birthday party, but a picture of your daughter that you claim has been abducted by child abusers.

A friend of mine has the capacity to see how many hits her pictures on facebook register. A picture of her boyfriend purporting to whack a pig with a shovel registered hardly any! However an innocent picture of her neice sat in a paddling pool registered hundreds and was removed instantly she realised.

Look upon the Degas sculpture of the little dancer, and admire it as a piece of art, then consider it as a child prostitute in the salon parading before French 'gentlemen'. Two different things entirely when you have the benifit of hindsight.

One has to wonder about the team behind the release of the images, who are surely in comunication with someone who has had child protection background or Police background please! Thus MW's twitter requests for further information show how wrong the release of such images are.

I am sure that MW is aware of the story of the Hazel Ascot appreciation society, who organised beauty pagents and photoshoots in innocent celebration of Britains answer to Shirley Temple. What was refered to as the 'hobby' was very thinly veiled and provided the Police with valuable insight into how these organisations functioned virtually in the open. It makes enlightening reading though unpleasant so be warned if you look into it.

In the pit of your gut it is what makes some people uneasy about the images of Jon Benet Ramsey and others get just too many thrills.

Kate explained this photo the first time: ' it was taken after she'd raided my make-up box'. Hmm. blue eyeshadow hasn't really been the thing since how long? And pray tell me, how does a toddler put make-up on so well and not only that, pose like a diva?

Second explanation in the book where Kate has had the temerity to publish it again: 'this was taken after a professional beautician who was visiting made her up'. Ah, now she's realised that children aren't so adept.

I'm just wondering if this was a message published to whom it may concern. Perhaps there are other photographs.

It's interesting to consider the storm of protest there has been today about this story:

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

It strikes me that similar considerations could apply to the picture of MM.

tigger wrote:Kate explained this photo the first time: ' it was taken after she'd raided my make-up box'. Hmm. blue eyeshadow hasn't really been the thing since how long? And pray tell me, how does a toddler put make-up on so well and not only that, pose like a diva?

Second explanation in the book where Kate has had the temerity to publish it again: 'this was taken after a professional beautician who was visiting made her up'. Ah, now she's realised that children aren't so adept.

I'm just wondering if this was a message published to whom it may concern. Perhaps there are other photographs.

This is just another 'reactive' response from the McCanns after being caught out

It is still beyond me that the McCanns ever thought that this photo (not to mention the other two which were on the same video last year) was suitable to publish in the first place. Did nobody in their entourage warn them that this image gave the most unfortunate impression ever?



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

The fact that any parent requested/allowed their child of 3 years to be photographed in these "poses" in the first place make me wonder about what their boundaries are of acceptable images. These were "arranged" poses that much is obvious so what does it say about them.

Why is there no lolita photos of amelie?

If the McCanns think that photos of their daughter in provocative poses are suitable for public display, I dread to think what their standards are when it comes to judging which ones are not.

It seems to me that a few players in this case are "disturbed", by that i mean mentally! There is something weird about the whole case, photos or not, IMO. I just get an "uneasy" feeling about the McCanns and their tapas friends, but don't really know why! call it gut instinct i suppose.

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

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I do not believe that piece about professional make artist appears in the Book.
"make-up" appears only twice.
'professional" only 11 times

Please don't let this become a forum myth. Katey may well have said it sometime, somewhere, but not in the book.

I'll see if I can find the origin of the quote.

For information, here's a link to all the photos in the book. The ghastly make up photo isn't there and, as has been discussed before, there are none of the fateful holiday itself which is odd.

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

I do not believe that the horrid blue eye-shadow was applied by a "professional make-up artist." I do not think that Maddie put it on herself, it is too good, but it is crude and over-done. And she is not having fun, in fact she is crying. If you look carefully at the left side of the face, you will see where the make-up has run. What sane parent would take such a terrible picture, let alone show it off to the world?

PeterMac wrote:Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I do not believe that piece about professional make artist appears in the Book.
"make-up" appears only twice.
'professional" only 11 times

Please don't let this become a forum myth. Katey may well have said it sometime, somewhere, but not in the book.

I have the Kindle edition and I cannot find it anywhere. I believe it was a magazine article. It was "a friend who is a beautician" as I remember it.

From the Independent (2/5/10) regarding Madeleine & Make Up.

"Madeleine McCann: A new film to remind us of her disappearance"

She is a little girl once more, her eyelids glistening with blue eyeshadow, a pink ribbon holding her blonde bob in place and a gold necklace hanging from her neck. Or at least that is how Madeleine McCann appears in a new video released today to mark a bitter anniversary, as her desperate parents attempt to refocus the world's attention on their missing daughter.



The still pictures of Madeleine messing around with her mother's make-up and jewellery at her home punctuate a poignant video, shot by a family friend to commemorate the 1,000th day since her disappearance, and which is being made available for all to watch and remember the anguish of those first few painful days. "

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

All I can say is Ughh to the flowery sweet stuff above.

Shibboleth wrote:
I have the Kindle edition and I cannot find it anywhere. I believe it was a magazine article. It was "a friend who is a beautician" as I remember it.

So do I. It makes it very easy to search, which is the only reason I got it.
For those who do not know, you can find the kindle edition, called .mobi, and various other formats, .pdf, .rtf, .doc, on google, though you have to go in quite deep.
And of course it may be a breach of copyright to download them. So you mustn't.

I quote from a recent post :

" The still pictures of Madeleine messing around with her mother's
make-up and jewellery at her home punctuate a poignant video, shot by a
family friend to commemorate the 1,000th day since her disappearance "

Am trying not to be picky, but I can understand the mentioning the photo was released to commemorate this anniversary, but when the video was made with Maddie present obviously [!!], how could the intention to be to commemorate the anniversary of a disappearance they did not know was going to happen ? The only inference from this wording is that they knew at the time the video was made that she would be disappearing.......
sorry but thats the only way the above sentence makes any sense to me.......

or am I reading a bit too much into the wording ?

russiandoll wrote:I quote from a recent post :

" The still pictures of Madeleine messing around with her mother's
make-up and jewellery at her home punctuate a poignant video, shot by a
family friend to commemorate the 1,000th day since her disappearance "

Am trying not to be picky, but I can understand the mentioning the photo was released to commemorate this anniversary, but when the video was made with Maddie present obviously [!!], how could the intention to be to commemorate the anniversary of a disappearance they did not know was going to happen ? The only inference from this wording is that they knew at the time the video was made that she would be disappearing.......
sorry but thats the only way the above sentence makes any sense to me.......

or am I reading a bit too much into the wording ?

I think you're reading too much into it. I think the friend made a video to commemorate the anniversary and added the still images into the video.

yes I agree......its a case of reading too much too quickly and in a negative frame of mind....daft of me to even post it I should have had the thought ,and then had the common sense to dismiss it !


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

PeterMac wrote:Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I do not believe that piece about professional make artist appears in the Book.
"make-up" appears only twice.
'professional" only 11 times

Please don't let this become a forum myth. Katey may well have said it sometime, somewhere, but not in the book.

I'm sure I replied this post many weeks ago? I was wrong, but I remember seeing it around May, did try to find it again. Point is, I thought it was in the book, wasn't. Remember clearly my indignation seeing that photograph again, with a different explanation. So probably in one of the rags. Must have seen it online, Mail or BBC. I will try to find it again and will post when I do.
I think the first time it was published was January 2010? Thanks to the Burgau topic, it now looks like one of - if not the last photograph of Maddie.

tigger wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I do not believe that piece about professional make artist appears in the Book.
"make-up" appears only twice.
'professional" only 11 times

Please don't let this become a forum myth. Katey may well have said it sometime, somewhere, but not in the book.

I'm sure I replied this post many weeks ago? I was wrong, but I remember seeing it around May, did try to find it again. Point is, I thought it was in the book, wasn't. Remember clearly my indignation seeing that photograph again, with a different explanation. rest snipped

I thought exactly the same as you.

I think I'm correct in saying that this bizarre photo first appeared in May 2010 as part of the video put together by Jon Corner to mark the third anniversary of Madeleine's "disappearance".

Here's another link to all the photos that are published in the book.

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

tigger wrote:Kate explained this photo the first time: ' it was taken after she'd raided my make-up box'. Hmm. blue eyeshadow hasn't really been the thing since how long?  And pray tell me, how does a toddler put make-up on so well and not only that, pose like a diva?

Second explanation in the book where Kate has had the temerity to publish it again: 'this was taken after a professional beautician who was visiting made her up'. Ah, now she's realised that children aren't so adept.

I'm just wondering if this was a message published to whom it may concern. Perhaps there are other photographs.

More 'evidence' - if any more was needed - of McCann duplicity and game playing, imo. Plus, I do believe (reluctantly)  coded messages and meanings.

They know perfectly well Madeleine didn't 'raid' the 'make-up box', imo. As so many people have pointed out. For one thing she wouldn't have been able to apply the make-up like that. For another thing, she looks absolutely miserable. Not well at all, there is no colour in her face - either drugged or ill (or even worse, as a few posters have suggested).

And I know that there has been much discussion about her neck - are their finger marks, has the area been photo-shopped or whitened to hide something?

Were these Kate's actual words? Even if they weren't her exact words, it is still a flippant remark to make when the photo shows Madeleine looking so miserable.

If they were Kate's exact words, I do believe they are quite revealing. The use of the word 'raid' in interesting. It has all sorts of connotations but in the context of a child playing, it is a curious choice. You might possibly use the word 'raid' in the context of 'raiding the fridge' or 'biscuit tin' or something. But a three year old 'raiding' a make-up box? I think it is an odd choice of words.

To my mind, the word 'raid' is closely associated with a police raid. I would imagine that it is a word that has huge significance for anyone involved in the criminal world, for instance. 

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

I hate to even have to write this, as it sounds so........  . But, in view of the fact that I think certain people get some kind of kick out of others naivety (and I was naive about this case for at least five years)  I also think the phrase 'my make-up box' is a bit peculiar.

I have various bags with sundry items of make-up in them which I carry in handbags or take on holiday (usually a bit of a muddle and a mess as I don't really wear much make-up). I call them make-up bags. In the bathroom, I do have a couple of boxes as well with assorted lotions and potions and some make-up. I would probably describe these as 'make-up boxes' (but without the prefix 'my' as it is self-evident that they are mine, because my partner does not wear make up!

I would have used the expression: 'the make-up box' or 'the dressing up box' if I had had a box full of make-up/dressing up clothes  etc that was especially designed for for my children to play with when young. (And in actual fact, 'the dressing up box' is still in existence but I never specifically encouraged my children to play with make-up).

However - given that Madeleine looks so miserable and it's such an awful choice of photo - I think that the  words: 'it was taken after she'd raided my make-up box' are as horribly creepy as the photo.

Ugh. How I despise them.

That picture reminds me of the very young girls inappropriately dressed and made up and dancing in that programme Big fat gypsy wedding , produced by Jeremy Wilkins ...or Jez as they very informally call him .

Quite. What a creep he is.

I am still shocked by the post on p(?1?)... Am trying very hard to work out if this poster was taking the p**s - having no problem with this photo and comparing it to face-painting at 'country fayres'!
Seriously?!?
Just when I thought I'd read it all...

Rasputin wrote:That picture reminds me of the very young girls inappropriately dressed and made up and dancing in that programme Big fat gypsy wedding , produced by Jeremy Wilkins ...or Jez as they very informally call him .

Jeremy Wilkins is a prat.
I despise both him and Firecracker Films for the BFGW bilge, which claimed to 'represent Gypsies' - no, wrong! Sensationalist bulls**t that they wouldn't have got away with had it been 'Jew' or 'Black' or 'Asian' in the title.
But rant over as that's a whole other argument and not for here. Just sayin, he's a prat (and I'm being polite!)

Back to the photo - I would have no issue with seeing a mischievous, sparkly-eyed lil girl having fun with her Mama's make-up bag as a one off.
This though imo shows a tear-stained, unsmiling, possibly bruised and dead-eyed girl plastered in c**p. Nothing 'fun' here.
Even if innocent the fact of releasing such a photo in the claimed circumstances shows an appalling lack of judgement.
Again imo, a 'warning' to someone, and a 'we can get away with anything' attitude.
Woeful and disrespectful to Maddie too, poor little thing

Yes, there are so many ADULTS who are behaving like perverts - at  the very best.

Jez Wilkins - bog fat man prat - pathetic.....in so many ways..........

And what happened to Madeleine ?

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

That's face painting a Country Fayres!

Doug D wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That's face painting a Country Fayres!

Absolutely! And doesn't she look lovely? My favourite picture, actually
This is what a photo of a little girl having fun with make-up or otherwise should look like - twinkling eyes, big smile...
Thank you Doug D

ETA: Could the two photos be put side by side please? I can't do photo's but I think the two together would perfectly prove the point... TIA if not I'll have a go