Photographs and memories

by **Jill Havern** 09.05.11 13:47

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

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

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

Please post images on this thread that have caused you to Shocked

by **Jill Havern** 09.05.11 13:55

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

by hentie 09.05.11 14:21

My goodness those pictures tell a different tale to the KM's snippets from the book!

I am totally gobsmacked and I've only had chance to see a few quotes.

How I hope there will be something further in there that will trigger a re opening. I'm speechless

.

by ufercoffy 09.05.11 17:19

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

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.”

***
“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.”

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

by ufercoffy 09.05.11 18:14

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

by Guest 09.05.11 18:52

I still can't get my head round the McCanns thinking that the ghastly and highly inappropriate blue eye shadow photo of Madeleine was suitable for mass circulation and it was even worse when their supporters and the media agreed with them!

by **Jill Havern** 09.05.11 19:10

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

I've always found it curious that Kate and Gerry like to dress alike.

by ROSA 11.05.11 20:45

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

by The Shelfstacker 11.05.11 21:26

"How they all so wish for it to be 'over'. For the McCanns to have got away with it and everyone to agree that is the case.
They don't even now cover their appalling views with any pretence of 'searching for Madeleine'. Madeleine is never mentioned. It's all about Clarence and Gerry and Kate. A child 'vanished'. The c***s responsible for her safety make up a story about how she vanished. The police struggle to find evidence because the McCanns destroyed the evidence and then lied through their teeth, fled the country, refused to return or co-operate, levelled racist abuse at the Portuguese, hounded innocent people in north Africa, gathered money in and paid their mortage with it, squandered it on a gang of thugs from Spain who upgraded their servers with it, then sacked them, then went back to work and want everyone to forget about wee Madeleine and just keep giving them cash to spend.
And their trolls on this site continue to dedicate themselves to the protection of the McCanns, hoping it will all go away, shout that it's over even while the entire site is packed with people who disagree and wont let it lie.
They cant do their world tours, they cant lecture Oxford on media relations as if they were experts, they will not be left alone, because they are guilty.
They dumped their child's body after she died while left alone. [As has been alleged]
Thats the reality. It's not some oversight in a PT office, or a lost file on a computer. It's a moral offence, a criminal offence and they should be in gaol. And they will be.
And whats worse for them, they will be hounded to their graves for the offence they have committed.
They were suspects in the death of their own child. Their own child.
And they were not cleared."

The words of "Prof Moriarty", previously of the 3As forum.

by ROSA 12.05.11 22:35

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

by ufercoffy 12.05.11 22:44

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

by ROSA 12.05.11 22:55

i agree the ugly truth is very disturbing ! i think i need a strong coffy [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by ROSA 13.05.11 0:17

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

by ROSA 13.05.11 0:26

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

by ROSA 15.05.11 2:41

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

Fresh appeal: Kate and Gerry McCann made a personal appeal to the Prime Minister to help them search for their daughter

mccanns look a little on edge must be hard to keep up with growing public outrage

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

by ROSA 18.05.11 13:42

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

by tiny 25.05.11 17:42

help needed. is the photo on the mantlepiece in the mccanns house the same as the last photo,only the background looks different

by Kitti 25.05.11 21:39

It's been photoshopped...like every photo has been off Madeleine.....the eye defect that never was.

by Honeycomb 25.05.11 21:45

I hope these people go down for what they did to Madeleine.

by The Shelfstacker 27.05.11 12:20

There is one thing, which at first glance would appear to go off on a tangent, which made me realise that this case is far from normal and everything is not as it seems.

Do you remember the copies of the McCanns passport pictures which appeared in the files, Volume 10 as I remember? G McCanns passport was issued in 2004, via the FCO (therefore somewhere abroad). K Healy's was issued in 1998 in the UK.

G McCann is beaming. K Healy is side on to the camera and smiling.

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

The Government's IPS website has the rules on passport pictures. These new rules came into force on 5 October 1998, the day from which it became a requirement for children to have their own passport. Amongst the many rules are these:

The rules for passport photos

The photographs you supply with your application must:

show you with a neutral expression and your mouth closed (no grinning, frowning or raised eyebrows)
show you on your own (babies should not have toys or a dummy, and there shouldn’t be other people in the photo)
be in colour, not black and white
be identical
be taken within the last month
be 45 millimetres high x 35 millimetres wide - this is the standard size when you have a passport photo taken in a photo booth or studio (you should not trim a larger photograph to meet this condition)
be clear and in sharp focus, with a clear difference between your face and the background
be taken against a plain cream or plain light grey background
not show you with red-eye
be of you facing forward and looking straight at the camera
not be torn, creased, or marked
be printed on plain white photographic paper
be free from shadows
be taken with your eyes open and clearly visible (no sunglasses or tinted glasses and no hair across your eyes)
be free from reflection or glare on your glasses, and the frames must not cover your eyes - the Identity and Passport Service (IPS) recommends that, if possible, you remove your glasses
be professionally printed (photographs printed at home are not acceptable)
show your full head, without any head covering, unless you wear one for religious beliefs or medical reasons
be taken with nothing covering your face - you should make sure nothing covers the outline of your eyes, nose or mouth
be a close-up of your head and shoulders with a recommended head height (the distance between the bottom of your chin and the crown of your head) between 29 and 34 mm
not have any writing on the front or back, except on certified photos - trademarks or photographic printing on the back must not show through

But if you look at the pictures the McCanns used, their departure from the rules are not minor slippages, they are glaring inconsistencies. Those pictures would never have got through ordinarily. Am I being overly conspiratorial here? Or are they both really spooks, as has been alleged before?

by Guest 27.05.11 12:26

Actually I hadn't noticed that before The Shelfstacker, well spotted thumbsup

I think the photo definitely has to be a face on photo, they won't accept any other, I remember when I applied for mine, I sent off a recent photo (trying to save doing more), which was not quite face on and they rejected it.

by sherlock 27.05.11 12:40

I also thought Kate McCann/Healey was born in March 1967? Certainly Wikipedia does!

Unless my eyes need testing the picture of her passport shows her birth date as 5th March 1960

Can anybody help me out here?

by Guest 27.05.11 12:44

sherlock wrote:I also thought Kate McCann/Healey was born in March 1967? Certainly Wikipedia does!

Unless my eyes need testing the picture of her passport shows her birth date as 5th March 1960

Can anybody help me out here?

It certainly looks like that sherlock - that would make her 51 $i don\'t know$

by Guest 27.05.11 12:45

The year isn't very clear but I think it is meant to be 1968.

by LittleMissMolly 27.05.11 12:56

Marian wrote:The year isn't very clear but I think it is meant to be 1968.

No ... it's really weird - there is an 8 in the issue date (Dec 1998) and it is quite clearly an 8, with a definite 'waist' to it , whereas the DOB is definitely a 0.

How odd Shocked

by Guest 27.05.11 12:58

LittleMissMolly wrote:
Marian wrote:The year isn't very clear but I think it is meant to be 1968.

No ... it's really weird - there is an 8 in the issue date (Dec 1998) and it is quite clearly an 8, with a definite 'waist' to it , whereas the DOB is definitely a 0.

How odd

Yes I magnified it and it does look like a 0, I must say. Will go and look see if there are any more images anywhere.

by sherlock 27.05.11 13:15

candyfloss wrote:Yes I magnified it and it does look like a 0, I must say. Will go and look see if there are any more images anywhere.

I magnified it so it was the only thing that was on my screen and it is an 0 and not an 8

Be interesting to compare it with other pics of the passport - if there are any and anybody can find them

by Guest 27.05.11 13:17

Well we can knock that one on the head here is a good copy of passport

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

by Guest 27.05.11 13:18

In my opinion the disputed figure (8 or 0) is not the same as the 0 on the 05 and when you lean back from the screen and view it, it does look like 8.

P.S. This has now been confirmed.