Re: Photographs and memories

by Advocatus 12.01.12 23:54

ufercoffy wrote:[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.]

These are clearly paedo candy and shold never have been taken (as a parent, my opinion) let alone appear (courtesie of non-enity Clarence and his tamed Fleet St best (groan)) now in the public domain, some endorsed bt TM and their pr machine.

Imho these photos surely inicate that paedophillia is at the heart of this case, and as those clued up amongst us know , is endemic within the UK...portugal too, Belgium, the list is long...

by jd 13.01.12 0:22

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.

A whopping 17 'you knows' in this little paragraph of 6 lines alone

by Advocatus 13.01.12 1:30

jd wrote:
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.

A whopping 17 'you knows' in this little paragraph of 6 lines alone

Yes, whopping nails it!

I don't know if you play poker, but I do, and it is all about mathematics and body language, bluff, and counter-bluff. Stats, percentages, outcomes.

That is why you see half the pros wear huge mirrored sunglasses, and when they play (and I have studied the pros in the Vegas camps for several years) they are like rock idols from Pompeii, they don't move, no tells, no ear scratching, no nose scratching, no blowing of cheeks, and all the rest, all the crap Gerry exhibits at every interview.

by Advocatus 13.01.12 1:35

jd wrote:
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.

A whopping 17 'you knows' in this little paragraph of 6 lines alone

. A normal adult male would not give such a statement. I am embarrassed, our Police have let us down all along. Most forces are corrupt, it is endemic and still going on, I am hoping and praying some good coppers do the business.

Advocatus I have deleted a part of your post. What you said is not fact. Please be more careful when using such words to describe people. Thank you.

by **kikoraton** 13.01.12 19:54

I've also highlighted these incredibly creepy remarks by Payne and Corner, and as I recall I managed to do it within the 140-characters limit imposed by twitter! Over several tweets, it must be admitted.
We know all about Payne/the Gaspars/ Yvonne Martin. The one who concerns me more is Corner. I used to think he was just a small player, some provincial guy with a studio. He's not. He's been appointed to a high academic position at Salford University to where the BBC has transferred many of its functions. He wields a lot of power and must know many influential people. With the views (reported above) which he holds on the attractiveness of a three-year-old girl, I wouldn't want him around any of my circle of family and friends.
I have the feeling that he may not be the only maker of films known to the tapas group.

On another tack altogether, I suppose it's normal for paedophiles to talk without shame or embarrassment about their feelings for children. There would be no fun in being secretive about it.

by Advocatus 13.01.12 20:25

On another tack altogether, I suppose it's normal for paedophiles to talk without shame or embarrassment about their feelings for children. There would be no fun in being secretive about it.

Spot on, from what I've read they like to boast and brag of their activities, they like to show off their trophies, and for many, just like any drug, the early thrills they got from relatively tame stuff, for want of a better word, invariably escalates to achieve the same sense of satiation, and on an it escalates, up to snuff movies, satanic ritual abuse sacrifices, and far worse.

by russiandoll 14.01.12 17:04

imo the reply should have read something along the following lines, for it not to have raised a gigantic red flag:

Dr David Payne reply: Madeleine’s a striking child, unique looking due to her iris defect, blonde hair in a bob, quite petite. She
is very bright, Kate and Gerry’s pride and joy, a happy go lucky child, she plays very happily with Lily and the other children.

note the rapid switch from 1 verb in the present to the majority in the past tense then a sudden reversion back to the present to end his reply. [highlighted].
Could someone kindly refresh my memory as to how long after the disappearance this reply came? Payne at this stage seems to have little doubt she existed in the past and is no longer with us.

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.”

by **kikoraton** 14.01.12 20:56

I believe it was a year later, but I can't be sure.

by **tigger** 14.01.12 21:02

kikoraton wrote:I believe it was a year later, but I can't be sure.

Re your earlier remark on Corner, I've always 'liked' him. Little in the background, but present in Huelva? Appears like the Deus ex Machina and disappears again. Turns out to be very well connected? Michael Wright and John Corner and thirdly John McCann, yes, I like them a lot as facilitators at least.

by Advocatus 14.01.12 22:05

tigger wrote:
kikoraton wrote:I believe it was a year later, but I can't be sure.

Re your earlier remark on Corner, I've always 'liked' him. Little in the background, but present in Huelva? Appears like the Deus ex Machina and disappears again. Turns out to be very well connected? Michael Wright and John Corner and thirdly John McCann, yes, I like them a lot as facilitators at least.

MW from memory is not a blood relative iirc. If he and Gerry, big IF, were up to something vis a vis moving something weighing 35 pounds, then if I were the lead actor I'd wanna make damned sure of no 2's

1 capabilities

2 trustworthiness

3 ability to handle pressure ie cross-examination etc

So mr wright bears a close look, what is his background, ex army, what?

If I was looking for someone fitting all of the above I would be v v careful my pick was sound.

I.e. On the square, willing to:

"You must conceal all the crimes of your brother Masons... and should you be summoned as a witness against a brother Mason be always sure to shield him.. It may be perjury to do this, it is true, but your keeping your obligations."
[ Ronayne, "Handbook of Masonry" p. 183 ]

This means, for example, that if a criminal, who happens to be a Freemason, goes to court, and the judge is a Freemason as well, the judge's duty is to protect the criminal instead of obeying the law. Now, expand on this even further and you will draw a pretty horrifying picture.

by Ollie 16.01.12 17:53

The McCann children spent most of the holiday in the creches, so it would make sense that when the familly were all together they would take photos. I may be wrong (please correct me if I am) but there doesn't seem to of been any photos taken of the afternoon on the beach on the 3rd May. To me this doesn't feel right, why weren't photos taken?

by **tigger** 16.01.12 17:59

Ollie wrote:The McCann children spent most of the holiday in the creches, so it would make sense that when the familly were all together they would take photos. I may be wrong (please correct me if I am) but there doesn't seem to of been any photos taken of the afternoon on the beach on the 3rd May. To me this doesn't feel right, why weren't photos taken?

Well, we're all wondering why there are so few photographs. Apart from the fact that many of us think Maddie wasn't there to be photographed, their idea of a family holiday is apparently to have as little time with the children as possible.
The trip to the beach is pure nonsense, it's given in the book to show: Kate being frightened leaving the children for five seconds when they were only twenty feet away from her and Gerry spotting a really unsavoury guitar player. Tiresome.

by Ollie 16.01.12 18:24

tigger wrote:
Ollie wrote:The McCann children spent most of the holiday in the creches, so it would make sense that when the familly were all together they would take photos. I may be wrong (please correct me if I am) but there doesn't seem to of been any photos taken of the afternoon on the beach on the 3rd May. To me this doesn't feel right, why weren't photos taken?

Well, we're all wondering why there are so few photographs. Apart from the fact that many of us think Maddie wasn't there to be photographed, their idea of a family holiday is apparently to have as little time with the children as possible.
The trip to the beach is pure nonsense, it's given in the book to show: Kate being frightened leaving the children for five seconds when they were only twenty feet away from her and Gerry spotting a really unsavoury guitar player. Tiresome.

I agree with you Tigger. I also wonder why Madeleine said it was the best day ever (imo a child Madeleines age wouldn't say this) because this wasn't so different to any of the other days of the holiday - creche and minimum time spent with parents.

by **tigger** 16.01.12 18:28

Ollie wrote:
tigger wrote:
Ollie wrote:The McCann children spent most of the holiday in the creches, so it would make sense that when the familly were all together they would take photos. I may be wrong (please correct me if I am) but there doesn't seem to of been any photos taken of the afternoon on the beach on the 3rd May. To me this doesn't feel right, why weren't photos taken?

Well, we're all wondering why there are so few photographs. Apart from the fact that many of us think Maddie wasn't there to be photographed, their idea of a family holiday is apparently to have as little time with the children as possible.
The trip to the beach is pure nonsense, it's given in the book to show: Kate being frightened leaving the children for five seconds when they were only twenty feet away from her and Gerry spotting a really unsavoury guitar player. Tiresome.

I agree with you Tigger. I also wonder why Madeleine said it was the best day ever (imo a child Madeleines age wouldn't say this) because this wasn't so different to any of the other days of the holiday - creche and minimum time spent with parents.

Apart from that, four year olds don't have this temporal awareness. If something nice happened on that day, they'd only be interested to have it again the next day. E.g. played all afternoon on the slide, had a lovely time, next thing that comes into their mind is 'are we going to do it again tomorrow?'.
But a comparative assessment of her tiny life and concluding that this was the 'very best day ever'. No way!

by Daisy 16.01.12 18:30

Ollie wrote:The McCann children spent most of the holiday in the creches, so it would make sense that when the familly were all together they would take photos. I may be wrong (please correct me if I am) but there doesn't seem to of been any photos taken of the afternoon on the beach on the 3rd May. To me this doesn't feel right, why weren't photos taken?

No, it doesn't feel right Ollie. Busy parents getting to spend time holidaying with their precious offspring and not one picture of the mother with any of the children. Very unatural.

We could ask the same question about the lack of photos from the Donegal holiday. 46 (or 27?) of them got together, 3 generations, Grannie, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, crikey even dead Uncle Hughie was there according to some reports! They paint such a lovely family scene, 'playing rounders on the beach, Madeleine, the little daredevil, the only one that would go in the freezing Atlantic sea, such a determined little thing' - (paraphrased - Aunt Trisha). Where are the photos of these precious memories? I'm sure if any existed they'd most certainly have been used in the marketing campaign. Instead we have just 3 dubious photos of Madeleine with her siblings & the same 2 cousins, Fiona & Gregor. One of the pictures is of the four children sat on the kerbside of (what appears to be) a busy road, opposite a bookies! What a lovely location for a photo opportunity.

by Ollie 16.01.12 18:40

Daisy wrote:
Ollie wrote:The McCann children spent most of the holiday in the creches, so it would make sense that when the familly were all together they would take photos. I may be wrong (please correct me if I am) but there doesn't seem to of been any photos taken of the afternoon on the beach on the 3rd May. To me this doesn't feel right, why weren't photos taken?

No, it doesn't feel right Ollie. Busy parents getting to spend time holidaying with their precious offspring and not one picture of the mother with any of the children. Very unatural.

We could ask the same question about the lack of photos from the Donegal holiday. 46 (or 27?) of them got together, 3 generations, Grannie, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends, crikey even dead Uncle Hughie was there according to some reports! They paint such a lovely family scene, 'playing rounders on the beach, Madeleine, the little daredevil, the only one that would go in the freezing Atlantic sea, such a determined little thing' - (paraphrased - Aunt Trisha). Where are the photos of these precious memories? I'm sure if any existed they'd most certainly have been used in the marketing campaign. Instead we have just 3 dubious photos of Madeleine with her siblings & the same 2 cousins, Fiona & Gregor. One of the pictures is of the four children sat on the kerbside of (what appears to be) a busy road, opposite a bookies! What a lovely location for a photo opportunity.

When we have had big family get togethers loads of photos have been taken, and trying to squeeze as many of the family into a few of the photos, something everyone does. It's great to look at them a few years later.

by e29j07 29.01.12 12:58

@ newintown and jean in the youtube video she doesnt say the year before they went to Portugal. she says the april we went to portugal

by Guest 29.01.12 15:58

e29j07 wrote:@ newintown and jean in the youtube video she doesnt say the year before they went to Portugal. she says the april we went to portugal

Yes I do agree now about what Kate said in the video at around 1.14; here's the link again.

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

by Ribisl 11.02.12 18:39

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

I am new around here so apologise if I am going over the same ground that has been touched earlier. But having spent a good few hours following this thread (phew!) I am left with one overwhelming question: why did MCs find it necessary to edit so many of the photos? I don't necessarily believe, as some of you obviously do, that some of these photos are not of Madelene. It is very difficult to establish such facts by just looking at a collection of snapshots taken under different conditions over a long period of time. So I keep an open mind. However there is no doubt in my mind that a number of these pictures have been edited because I can clearly see the tell-tale signs having worked with Photoshop etc.

Another point that strikes me as odd is regarding all the narratives we have been fed about the tennis ball photo. If I remember correctly, this was taken after Madelene had a tennis lesson. It is usual for the tennis coach to get the kids to collect balls when the lesson is over. But there is absolutely no way a professional coach would have allowed a child to join a lesson wearing those sandals. They are simply too dangerous to run around in, especially on those all weather courts which tend to be a bit 'sticky'.

by **tigger** 11.02.12 18:56

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

I am new around here so apologise if I am going over the same ground that has been touched earlier. But having spent a good few hours following this thread (phew!) I am left with one overwhelming question: why did MCs find it necessary to edit so many of the photos? I don't necessarily believe, as some of you obviously do, that some of these photos are not of Madelene. It is very difficult to establish such facts by just looking at a collection of snapshots taken under different conditions over a long period of time. So I keep an open mind. However there is no doubt in my mind that a number of these pictures have been edited because I can clearly see the tell-tale signs having worked with Photoshop etc.

Another point that strikes me as odd is regarding all the narratives we have been fed about the tennis ball photo. If I remember correctly, this was taken after Madelene had a tennis lesson. It is usual for the tennis coach to get the kids to collect balls when the lesson is over. But there is absolutely no way a professional coach would have allowed a child to join a lesson wearing those sandals. They are simply too dangerous to run around in, especially on those all weather courts which tend to be a bit 'sticky'.

Welcome! Yes it's quite a thread isn't it. Your point about the sandals has been noted - we also worked out from the diameter of the tennis balls that in that photographs the girl is at least 114 cm tall. Not the 90 cm the McCanns advertised...
There are also plenty of comments in other topics about the trainers with pink lights seen by the cleaner on the 30th. Never seen those again. The girl in pink in the playground photo is wearing trainers, but there's an awful lot wrong with that shot as well and the face of the girl in pink isn't visible.

by Ribisl 11.02.12 19:16

@ tigger

Then the only plausible reason why they should 'invent' these photos is because there is something wrong with their version of the events ie they are not telling the whole truth. I know you and other regular contributors have got there much earlier but I need to be convinced in my own mind. So the MCs are themselves caught in the intricate web they have span and are still spinning away... nah

by **tigger** 11.02.12 19:56

Ribisl wrote:@ tigger

Then the only plausible reason why they should 'invent' these photos is because there is something wrong with their version of the events ie they are not telling the whole truth. I know you and other regular contributors have got there much earlier but I need to be convinced in my own mind. So the MCs are themselves caught in the intricate web they have span and are still spinning away...

Another reason or additional reason: she wasn't as beautiful as they made out. Check out the very early photographs , at about 1 year old, she looks almost Downs' - not that she was of course. But that sure as hell doesn't look like a beautiful healthy child to me.
Slightly sagging right side of face and eye, very thick walls under her eyes - in many she looks insecure, sad and even ill.
As far as photoshopping goes, we have official confirmation in the Piers Morgan interview (transcript on this site) that she didn't have a coloboma, just a spot which you could hardly see. TM had the cheek to say they 'never made much of it'.
Consequently, all photographs which show a distinct coloboma are photoshopped for that reason alone. A lot of photographs show her with make up on, mascara or eyeliner, bit of lipstick. Why? Then quite a few with the closed mouth smile, not at all natural for a toddler, what with the make up and that smile - reminds me of JonBenet Ramsey, miniature woman.
It's also curious how very few 'family' photographs are available. Just looks like either Kate or Gerry took the snap, mostly Kate I think.

by Shhh 04.03.12 16:49

The laying back skirting board picture if you zoom in shows something at the top of the right ear. Almost looks like a bodybar ?

I don't believe this was taken by a professional photographer due to the skirting board being in the shot. Professionals are very particular about backgrounds on photographs and a skirting board would be a decimate no no. Which begs the question who took that photo and why?

by worriedmum 04.03.12 17:46

Yes that does look odd, shh...........I thought it could be a hair bead at first but I can't see any hair that it could be attached to.

by Guest 05.03.12 10:38

IAmNotMerylStreep wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:I think the "lighter" is actually the Doctor Who Sonic Screwdriver (Kids toy) if I remember correctly.

Edit: Similar to this.

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

Yes it does look like that.

And I do recall Kate saying Maddie liked Dr Who. Perhaps it was a birthday present as she is wearing the same dress as in the birthday cake photo.

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

What a quaint picture:

1. the group of three appears to be photoshopped in: just look at the dark shadows behind the hair of the women;
2. the child appears to be fiercely resisting being held in that awkward grip, pushing with her right foot against te table. Why isn't she held up in a more cuddling position, or stood on a chair (or the cake put on a lower table for her to reach it without an problem)?
3. which part of her anatomy exactly is being held by the older woman's right hand?
4. why the pulling grip excersized on the childs left arm, pulling her forward instead of supporting her?
5. there is not a single sign of any kitchen activity; everything is spotless (perfect). The towel in front of the child looks more like a prop put there on purpose than a real towel which had been used or is meant for use: who would so neatly fold such a piece of cloth before taking a picture, when the cake itself is cold, not hot?

This picture is weird, to say the least. And why is hte child dressed in a summers dress in mid-winter?

by **tigger** 05.03.12 10:56

They're all in summer dress, there are about 15 plates on the table for that one cake? Not going to be big servings?
Shouldn't the candles be lit for the twins to blow out?
Maddie's left arm looks as if it's plastic, possible that and Kate's hand are photoshopped in there. Because Maddie's left hand is a fist and the other is open, not a natural thing to do for anyone. The arm and Kate's hand could have been pasted in which explains the almost impossible angle of Kate's right shoulder. That should be further forward to allow the elbow to go further back.
Black line around Maddie's sock (mirroring in photoshop is easy)
An inexplicable fuzzy straight line along Kate's right trouser leg.
I think the women really is holding Maddie but not sure where because she should be casting a shadow to her left if the light source is the same for Kate. Both shadows could at a pinch be on the wall but should be in the same direction.
What is interesting when blown up that Kate seems to wear a ring on her right middle finger and another on the left ring finger. Both rather large rings which look masculine. Could these be male hands that Kate has been fused too?
Anybody noticed what rings the McCanns wear?
I get zapped when I say these things, but try it in a mirror.

by Guest 05.03.12 11:03

tigger wrote:They're all in summer dress, there are about 15 plates on the table for that one cake? Not going to be big servings?
Shouldn't the candles be lit for the twins to blow out?
Maddie's left arm looks as if it's plastic, possible that and Kate's hand are photoshopped in there. Because Maddie's left hand is a fist and the other is open, not a natural thing to do for anyone. The arm and Kate's hand could have been pasted in which explains the almost impossible angle of Kate's right shoulder. That should be further forward to allow the elbow to go further back.
I get zapped when I say these things, but try it in a mirror.

Kate looks post-PdL here: drawn, haggard, highlights.
Who is the other woman?
When was this picture first made public?

by worriedmum 05.03.12 11:26

Is Kate wearing the same trousers that were taken away by the PJ?

by Guest 05.03.12 11:29

worriedmum wrote:Is Kate wearing the same trousers that were taken away by the PJ?

Looks like that, she sure has a thing for chess trousers big grin

by Guest 05.03.12 13:01

Portia: here's a link to a Daily Mail article of 5th August 2007 in which the photo appeared - though whether for the first time I don't know. Supposedly the other woman is Aunt Nora and it was Madeleine's 2nd birthday but that clearly cannot be correct.

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

Latest topics