Photographs and memories

Moa wrote:[img][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/img]

This picture is from October 2007. In this article Susan says when they arrived in May 2007 their son Caspar was 5 months old. So that means in october he had to be 10 months. And the boy in the stroller looks older than that? And he looks like Amelie.And if you look at the shoes, is it even a boy ?I got confused. Sorry if this been discused and clearified before..( I could only find that Susan had three kids wich in May 2007 where 5 months, 8 year and 10 year) Who is this kid?

" “This old woman grabbed me, and I was holding on to our five-month-old son, Caspian, and she grabbed my arm and spoke to me in Portuguese: ‘Hold on to your baby; there’s been an English child taken.’”
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They all have such dramatic Barbara Cartland type of stories. Everything is over the top.

lj wrote:

Moa wrote:[img][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/img]

This picture is from October 2007. In this article Susan says when they arrived in May 2007 their son Caspar was 5 months old. So that means in october he had to be 10 months. And the boy in the stroller looks older than that? And he looks like Amelie.And if you look at the shoes, is it even a boy ?I got confused. Sorry if this been discused and clearified before..( I could only find that Susan had three kids wich in May 2007 where 5 months, 8 year and 10 year) Who is this kid?

" “This old woman grabbed me, and I was holding on to our five-month-old son, Caspian, and she grabbed my arm and spoke to me in Portuguese: ‘Hold on to your baby; there’s been an English child taken.’”
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They all have such dramatic Barbara Cartland type of stories. Everything is over the top.

That is true..

In her witness statement susa says this

13-Processos Volume XIII, pages 3418 to 3420



Witness Statement

Susan Hubbard


Date: 2007.11.13
Time: 11H30
Nationality: Canadian

' That she comes to the process as a witness
' Is married to Anglican Father Haynes
' Has known the McCann family since three days after the disappearance (Sunday). That she went to Portugal on this date (06 May 2007), not to accompany the family but due to work related to the church, which was previously organized.
' That it is the truth that she only knows them through the church and never met them before.
' States that after getting to know the parents of the missing child, she invited Kate to take part in a meeting, in Lagos, on the 25th of May, with the intention of discussing items related to missing children. That she went to this meeting, with Kate and Kates cousin, Anne. They travelled to this meeting in the deponents car.
' After this occasion, she went various times to the McCann residence in Praia da Luz, and they also visited the deponent, in her home, on various occasions. These encounters had the objective of offering them comfort and support but also allowed for the children of both couples to play.
' She also adds that the McCann's' although being Catholics, attended some masses, where Madeleines disappearance was noted, celebrated by her husband, the Anglican priest.

' Questioned regarding the key to the church, she says that she knows nothing of this. Following the McCann departure to England, she was given the key to handover to the place the McCann's rented in Praia da Luz. She handed this key over the next Monday. Her handling of the key was suggested by one of the McCann family but she does not remember who. She notes that on this Monday, she handed over the keys to the cleaning staff who forwarded the key to the responsible rental agent and whose designation she does not remember.
' Besides these contacts, she did not maintain and other relation with the McCann family.
' Sean and Amelie, she notes, are children of normal behaviour for their age. They are active and dynamic.
' Regarding the parents, Gerald and Kate, she says that, in her opinion, they always presented a normal comportment, given the circumstances. That she noted a certain tranquillity, when in the presence of the twins. Via their gestures, she noted a great sadness and suffering. In their conversations, they would always talk of their missing daughter.
' Regarding Kate, she says that, besides being preoccupied with the health of her daughter, she was scared of what could have happened to Madeleine although she never spoke of her death.
' She describes them as a normal family
' She is not aware of any relevant details for the investigation. She claims that the parents are not involved in the disappearance and knows nothing else, other than what she has related.
' And nothing more was said. Reads and finds it in conformity, and ratifies and signs

Two things about that line - Her death, isnt that something you say if you know the child already is dead?`

Second , wouldnt it be normal to have death as an alternative as well, although you think your child is abducted, it still would be normal thinking she also could have been killed ? Denying that alternative seems suspicious to me..

Maybe its just me, but look at the mouth area, looks different? Can be because one of them is a picture of a picture. Still somethings feel different.

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

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

And I know its pointed out that this( of her in blue everton shirt) picture is fake anyway, or photoshopped, also like to point out that the twins in the background should have looked smaller than Madeleine in the front if it was not fake..

Moa wrote:

lj wrote:

Moa wrote:[img][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/img]

This picture is from October 2007. In this article Susan says when they arrived in May 2007 their son Caspar was 5 months old. So that means in october he had to be 10 months. And the boy in the stroller looks older than that? And he looks like Amelie.And if you look at the shoes, is it even a boy ?I got confused. Sorry if this been discused and clearified before..( I could only find that Susan had three kids wich in May 2007 where 5 months, 8 year and 10 year) Who is this kid?

" “This old woman grabbed me, and I was holding on to our five-month-old son, Caspian, and she grabbed my arm and spoke to me in Portuguese: ‘Hold on to your baby; there’s been an English child taken.’”
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They all have such dramatic Barbara Cartland type of stories. Everything is over the top.

That is true..

In her witness statement susa says this

13-Processos Volume XIII, pages 3418 to 3420



Witness Statement

Susan Hubbard


Date: 2007.11.13
Time: 11H30
Nationality: Canadian

' That she comes to the process as a witness
' Is married to Anglican Father Haynes
' Has known the McCann family since three days after the disappearance (Sunday). That she went to Portugal on this date (06 May 2007), not to accompany the family but due to work related to the church, which was previously organized.
' That it is the truth that she only knows them through the church and never met them before.
' States that after getting to know the parents of the missing child, she invited Kate to take part in a meeting, in Lagos, on the 25th of May, with the intention of discussing items related to missing children. That she went to this meeting, with Kate and Kates cousin, Anne. They travelled to this meeting in the deponents car.
' After this occasion, she went various times to the McCann residence in Praia da Luz, and they also visited the deponent, in her home, on various occasions. These encounters had the objective of offering them comfort and support but also allowed for the children of both couples to play.
' She also adds that the McCann's' although being Catholics, attended some masses, where Madeleines disappearance was noted, celebrated by her husband, the Anglican priest.

' Questioned regarding the key to the church, she says that she knows nothing of this. Following the McCann departure to England, she was given the key to handover to the place the McCann's rented in Praia da Luz. She handed this key over the next Monday. Her handling of the key was suggested by one of the McCann family but she does not remember who. She notes that on this Monday, she handed over the keys to the cleaning staff who forwarded the key to the responsible rental agent and whose designation she does not remember.
' Besides these contacts, she did not maintain and other relation with the McCann family.
' Sean and Amelie, she notes, are children of normal behaviour for their age. They are active and dynamic.
' Regarding the parents, Gerald and Kate, she says that, in her opinion, they always presented a normal comportment, given the circumstances. That she noted a certain tranquillity, when in the presence of the twins. Via their gestures, she noted a great sadness and suffering. In their conversations, they would always talk of their missing daughter.
' Regarding Kate, she says that, besides being preoccupied with the health of her daughter, she was scared of what could have happened to Madeleine although she never spoke of her death.
' She describes them as a normal family
' She is not aware of any relevant details for the investigation. She claims that the parents are not involved in the disappearance and knows nothing else, other than what she has related.
' And nothing more was said. Reads and finds it in conformity, and ratifies and signs

Two things about that line - Her death, isnt that something you say if you know the child already is dead?`

Second , wouldnt it be normal to have death as an alternative as well, although you think your child is abducted, it still would be normal thinking she also could have been killed ? Denying that alternative seems suspicious to me..

Such a claptrap. I am not a fan of all kind of conspiracy theories, but these hubbards make my skin crawl and are in a very suspicious way deeply involved imo, even if only after the fact.

Moa wrote:Maybe its just me, but look at the mouth area, looks different? Can be because one of them is a picture of a picture. Still somethings feel different.

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

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

And I know its pointed out that this( of her in blue everton shirt) picture is fake anyway, or photoshopped, also like to point out that the twins in the background should have looked smaller than Madeleine in the front if it was not fake..

It's even easier to see in the picture from a picture that the head is pasted on very badly. It isn't possible for the neck to carry the head like that, it should be quite a bit to her right. It's a very common mistake in life drawing. Knowledge of anatomy is really required with this sort of thing.
The mouth is different and somehow the girl looks older. Still, it's all one, SY have better equipment to figure this out than we have.

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

When you enlarge the two photos the facial difference is more noticable. The shape of the face in the Life magazine picture is longer and less round. I don't think that it's a copy of the other one but yet another variation of the football shirt series of photos.

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

When you enlarge the two photos the facial difference is more noticable. The shape of the face in the Life magazine picture is longer and less round. I don't think that it's a copy of the other one but yet another variation of the football shirt series of photos.

I think it's the same photo, but further adjusted. The left one has her face straighter, eyes lighter and bottom lip fuller. But the overlay changes the features as well, no highlights there make it more difficult to 'read' the planes of the face.
It's quite easy here to see the fake, in both even at this small size, the blur on the left face can easily be seen. The full photo also shows a blur on the elbow, a ghost line along the arm. The other Everton photo would be good to have alongside these two, the one that IMO isn't Maddie at all, not even her face. That one isn't photoshopped I think.

Interesting, thanks.

Very chubby cheeks in number 3 (thanks to get'em). Is this the real Maddie? Did the photoshoppers not consider that chubby cheeks were photogenic or attractive enough? (I think they are - viz Anna Botting of Sky).

kikoraton wrote:Very chubby cheeks in number 3 (thanks to get'em). Is this the real Maddie? Did the photoshoppers not consider that chubby cheeks were photogenic or attractive enough? (I think they are - viz Anna Botting of Sky).

OK, Thanks Gonzalo!
nr. one: looks more mature in a way, lenghtened face and head straightened. Mouth enhanced, more of a philtre on the upper lip as well. This was made using photograph 2 as the same photoshopping blur on the left face is present.
nr. two: looks like Maddie, but here as on many other photographs, the eyes seem to have mascara on them. Surely unusual for a child to have pale blond eyebrows and such very dark lashes? That makes her look older than three and a half. I've already bored everyone with the sloppy photoshopping. The expression on her face is one of insecurity - is this how they want her?
nr. 3: good example of a secure child, the grin is wide, the stance confident. this IMO isn't Maddie, looks quite like her, but no. The hair is longer and blonder of course, but one would expect both photographs to have been taken around the same time. Eyes look made up again to me.

On all three, I think the closed smile is strange. Not many children smile without showing their teeth. The smile itself is also a grown-up habit.

I've been looking at the photos which were originally on Gerry's blog. It does answer some of the questions about the football shirt photos; some of them are "age progressed" to give an impression of what she might look like now. However, we're no nearer to knowing what she looked like at any time in the past, thanks to the bewildering array of photos of apparently unrelated children.



Here's the link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Marian wrote:I've been looking at the photos which were originally on Gerry's blog. It does answer some of the questions about the football shirt photos; some of them are "age progressed" to give an impression of what she might look like now. However, we're no nearer to knowing what she looked like at any time in the past, thanks to the bewildering array of photos of apparently unrelated children.



Here's the link: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Marian, which photographs do you think are 'age progressed?' I'm sure the only ones were done in the US , just before the Oprah show. IMO none of the ones on the link are age progressed.
Have you noticed the normal smile in most of the others?

Hello Tigger. You need to go almost to the bottom of the page to those with the heading as the post title. Some of them change as you look at them. It's interesting to be able to see all the photos in one place for easier comparison.

It was suggested a couple of days ago that a friend of the McCs, J Renwick, had claimed that Maddie had "white-blonde hair". Is this true, or can we dismiss it? I have a photo of the girl I think might have been Maddie's substitute - showing white blonde hair.
That's why it's important that we dismiss anything that proves to be incorrect.

Kikoraton: here's an article where Jill Renwick is quoted as referring to Madeleine as being very blonde.



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

tigger wrote:

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

When you enlarge the two photos the facial difference is more noticable. The shape of the face in the Life magazine picture is longer and less round. I don't think that it's a copy of the other one but yet another variation of the football shirt series of photos.

I think it's the same photo, but further adjusted. The left one has her face straighter, eyes lighter and bottom lip fuller. But the overlay changes the features as well, no highlights there make it more difficult to 'read' the planes of the face.
It's quite easy here to see the fake, in both even at this small size, the blur on the left face can easily be seen. The full photo also shows a blur on the elbow, a ghost line along the arm. The other Everton photo would be good to have alongside these two, the one that IMO isn't Maddie at all, not even her face. That one isn't photoshopped I think.

Interesting, thanks.

As you say it's easy to adjust a photo. I've just copied and pasted the photo on the right and elongated it, it makes Madeleine look about 3 years older.



Those 2 photos are the same photo I believe as it if you look at the left shoulder, just next to where her arm is held up, there is a fleck of white on the blue shirt which is shown in both photos (just under where her hair curls into her chin).

Thank you, marian and juliet who found the GMTV reference (reported in The Independent) to "very pretty, very blonde".
Jill Renwick lives in Scotland and can't have known Maddie very well, because at the time she disappeared, she was certainly not "very blonde".
It's strange that a neighbour, who had a lot to say about the McCs, thought Maddie was "due to start school in September".



But family friend Jill Renwick told GMTV the McCanns were certain that Madeleine has been abducted.

"They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour and the shutters had been broken open and they had gone into the room and taken Madeleine," she said.

"They went out about eight, went back in at nine, they were fine, went back in at 10 and she was gone."

She described the missing girl as a "very pretty, very blonde three-year-old".

Ms Renwick said of the holiday: "This is the first time they have done this. They are very, very anxious parents and very careful and they chose Mark Warner because it is a family-friendly resort."

A Mark Warner spokesman said looking after the McCanns was their "first priority", along with finding their daughter, and added that if necessary it would fly other family members out to the Ocean Club, which it has run for two years.

He said: "Our staff are looking after them at the moment in whatever way they can but we can only imagine how awful it is for them.

"We are all hoping that she is asleep under a bush somewhere and we will find her soon."

He said the apartment the family were staying in was surrounded by other apartments, all of which have "quite sophisticated" locks on the doors.

Guests are being asked if they saw anyone acting suspiciously in the area, he said, adding that Mark Warner has never had cases of missing or abducted children before.

"We are hoping it's not that, though," he said. "It's the last thing we want but we have to investigate all avenues."

He said Mark Warner offers families a baby-sitting service where they can drop off their children for the night.

"Those facilities were available but, for whatever reason, they were not being used," he said.

Today neighbours near the family home in Rothley, Leicestershire, to which they are thought to have moved from Queniborough last summer, said they were "devastated" by the news.

Neighbour Penny Noble said she believed Madeleine was due to start at school in September.

I don't think that, in any of the photos there are of Madeleine, she can be described as being very blonde. As someone else has said, that description fits Amelie far better.

not the only comment describing a particular photo as sick, could you please elaborate for this newcomer ?

i am a major mccann skeptic, appalled at many photos I have seen of them and also of their daughter, however this video appears to me to show them looking seious exiting the church, thanking well wishers, laughing suddenly when balloons get in their faces then immediately reverting to serious expressions wthin seconds. May I please ask anyone here what this video signifies to you about this couple?

Russian Doll, I'm not sure which post you're referring to as I can't find anything recent here by PeterMac. As regards the pictures of the McCanns leaving church, they certainly seem to be having the time of their lives but I have read comments from others (including from people sceptical of them in general) that photos can be deceptive and they may not have been as happy as they seem. However, when all the instances of the McCanns laughing and joking at inappropriate moments are considered as a whole, I personally can only come to the conclusion that their grieving parents act is a hoax.

kikoraton wrote:It was suggested a couple of days ago that a friend of the McCs, J Renwick, had claimed that Maddie had "white-blonde hair". Is this true, or can we dismiss it? I have a photo of the girl I think might have been Maddie's substitute - showing white blonde hair.
That's why it's important that we dismiss anything that proves to be incorrect.

I've just had a good look at the little girl in pink near the playhouse, I don't think that's Madeleine at all. Reasonable likeness. Then there is the Everton one with the very blonde hair and the confident smile (which Maddie never had - the child rarely looks truly happy). But which one are you referring to?

Tigger, I think that Kikoraton may be referring to an as yet unpublished photo that he has obtained through his research.

I wonder if the colour purple features in it anywhere

Marian, you are correct. And altho' two years have passed since it was taken (the substitute , assuming I am correct, and the Naylor girl together), it would not be ethical for me to publish it here.
Purple, Molly??? Why? Ah, no. No connection to Tanner as far as I know. Is that what you had in mind?