Photographs and memories

The twins were born in 2005 , and if you look closely I think you can see their names are iced on the cake. There is pink and blue icing, I think this could be their2nd birthday, which would fit with Madeleine's size and what she is wearing, and Kate's trousers (ifthey are the same checked ones she wore in PDL)

Kate is wearing the ubiquitous checked capri pants as well. I agree with worriedmum it is twins second birthday. Funny as article says "Celebrating Madeleine's second birthday, Kate with her Aunt Nora"

Wonder why this hasn't been Carter-Rucked?

So not one single birthday photo of poor Madeleine (aka Cinderella).

sorry if its already been linked to on this topic, but I had never read her View on this topic. ( from 2007)

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

Some people think that the final photo of Madeleine McCann at the pool with Gerry and her sister, Amelie, is a forgery. The claim is that the photo really was only of Gerry and Amelie and that Madeleine was added in through photo enhancement, a ploy to cover up the fact she was already dead by early afternoon on day she was said to have gone missing.

I have to admire the effort to consider this possibility and the effort put out to analyze all the details of the photo and question some of the elements. It is always good to be curious enough to delve into an aspect of a case and see if there could be any clues there.

In this case, I would have to say the explanations of the photo being a fake are not strong enough for me to believe that Maddie’s death/disappearance occurred earlier than 6 PM in the evening.

My thoughts on the photo:

1) While it is true the picture is not perfectly composed with a centering of the threesome (and if Madeleine is not in the picture, then Gerry and Amelie are in the middle), this is not all that uncommon. With the advent of electronic photography, photos are snapped much more carelessly than when one had to pay for developing the prints. Cameras now are used more often as spontaneous recorders of events rather than composed photos for display.

2) That Madeleine’s outline is not overlapped by any person or object is likely just coincidence. If one snaps enough photos, some of them will have isolated objects.

3) The fact the brother is not in the photo simply means he was running about. Again, this is not a posed family portrait.

4) The fact Madeleine is laughing at something out of sight and her father and sister are not laughing is not particularly meaningful. Children tend to laugh spontaneously at whatever they think is funny. Sometime this is just something that strikes them amusing such as their big toe or an expression on someone’s face.

5) The fact that Madeleine is not in a swimsuit proves little. The outfits on the girls look like play outfits and the trio just happened by the pool area and sat down to relax and dangle their feet in the water.

6)The mo st telling clue in this photo that tends to go against the possibility of any forgery is in the clothing of Madeleine and Amelie. Take Maddie out of the picture and what you have is a little girl dressed in a horribly clashing outfit; an orange play suit and a fancy pink hat. Mothers do not tend to put such an outfit on their children and let them out of the house that way (especially a mother who is as fashion conscious as Kate). Maddie’s white hat would look better with her clothing.

The sportier white hat on Madeleine’s head does not clash with her girlier pink dress-like outfit, but that pink hat on Amelie’s head would go with it better. Put the two girls together on an outing and my guess is they started off with the better matching hat, and through play, the girls ended up with the other’s hat on their heads.

It really makes little sense that this photo would be manufactured. If Madeleine had been missing for the majority of the day, there would be far too long a period of time to account for and greater likelihood that Maddie’s invisibility would have been noticed. Furthermore, if she was killed in the morning, it would have been far easier for the McCanns to simply claim that while they were out at the playground or popping in and out of stores while they were shopping, they turned around and Maddie was gone. It is a much simpler story.

But, if Maddie died in the apartment while Gerry was at tennis, or after he came back, or during the tapas bar rendezvous, then the children were already in for the night and the chances of an abduction from the apartment story being created makes far more sense.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" border="0" />I Have been searching for a long time, and i got a few pictures that actually COME from Kate's camera so it says... I looked deeply into it and you can see when the pictures are taken, what time, and what settings the camera had. even what camera had. This is only possible if there is NO photoshopping done on it! so it means these pictures are real or only a cut out... So it only could be that the background has been cut out to certain Madeleine but there is further no edits done on it! I will post a picture of it... You can see when it's taken and that the name is even "kate_Camera" i have a few more of these, they are aswell really good size, like normal picture size...

May I ask where you got this from, Look4Maddy? Do you have a link please?

Very sorry everyone, but I don’t know how to transfer comments from one thread to the other so have just copied some relevant ones from ‘All Maddie’s Birthdays’ and pasted them here. (If it's all too much of a mess, you can find the info on the above thread)

I’ve brought the following over because it discusses Aunty Nora (or Not). Furthermore, the reflections in the table pose the question, why are Kate’s trousers not reflected when the blond woman’s apron appears to be. I would like to know if anyone thinks there should be a reflection,

I also do not find myself agreeing with Pat Brown on the pool photo. There has been a lot of time spent on comparing the backgrounds in the two versions that
were publicised and I feel that whilst Pat has been very busy bringing us other, very worthwhile input, she has not perhaps had the time to put in the deep
introspection and analysis that long standing members have had.

• [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.]


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Yesterday at 9:19 pm


Just an
observation, the knife is in Kate's left hand. Is she left handed?
I am right handed and would never consider holding a knife in my left hand.
Whether left or right handed is probably not of any importance, but has any one
else noticed.


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

• [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.]


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Today at 7:24 am


bobbin
wrote:Just an observation, the knife is in Kate's left hand. Is she left
handed?
I am right handed and would never consider holding a knife in my left hand.
Whether left or right handed is probably not of any importance, but has any one
else noticed.




Gosh! should have noticed that. I had a theory that Kate was pasted on to
someone's hands, because nothing about that photo really works.
I noticed she has a thick ring on her third finger of the right hand and and
one or two on the ring finger of the left.
I've been trying to find photographs and videos. If she's right-handed we
should be able to see that somewhere.
Still, I just checked and she does wear rings on those fingers.



_______________________________________________
Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake - Napoleon Bonaparte

What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our
power to account? Macbeth Act V


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

• [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.]


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Today at 10:20 am


I have
doubts that the woman on the left is Nora Paul, Kate's aunt - here's another
photo claimed to be of her.

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

In view of the error in describing the event as Madeleine's birthday, it's
probably just another error. Either that or confusing photos run in the McCann
and Healy families!



_______________________________________________
It's never too late to tell the truth and clear one's conscience.


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

• [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.]


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Today at 11:34 am


Jean
wrote:I have doubts that the woman on the left is Nora Paul, Kate's aunt -
here's another photo claimed to be of her.

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

In view of the error in describing the event as Madeleine's birthday, it's
probably just another error. Either that or confusing photos run in the McCann
and Healy families!



.....

The blond lady holding Madeleine has a very sharp nose profile, same as Kate's.

In the photo in the above site, the lady's nose is bulbous at the end.

Not the same noses at all, unless a nose-job has been done somewhere, sometime
since the photos were taken.
I also have difficulty finding the (left) arm position of the blond lady to be
physically feasible. Looks like one very long upper arm, with an elbow bend
that begs the question. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]


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

• [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.]


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Today at 11:48 am


bobbin wrote:


Jean wrote:I have doubts that the woman
on the left is Nora Paul, Kate's aunt - here's another photo claimed to be of
her.

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

In view of the error in describing the event as Madeleine's birthday, it's
probably just another error. Either that or confusing photos run in the McCann
and Healy families!



.....

The blond lady holding Madeleine has a very sharp nose profile, same as Kate's.
In the photo in the above site, the lady's nose is bulbous at the end.
Not the same noses at all, unless a nose-job has been done somewhere, sometime
since the photos were taken.
I also have difficulty finding the (left) arm position of the blond lady to be
physically feasible. Looks like one very long upper arm, with an elbow bend
that begs the question. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]




Thank you! Those arms aren't possible imo. You're quite right, these aren't the
same women, different types. One more frumpy other older glamour type.



_______________________________________________
Never interrupt your enemy when he's making a mistake - Napoleon Bonaparte

What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our
power to account? Macbeth Act V


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

• [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.]


[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Today at 12:01 pm


Ribisl
wrote:
Enlarge
this imageReduce
this image Click
to see fullsize
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I don't think this is her birthday photo at all. The two candles, pink and blue
decoration - the cake was meant for the twins but not for their birthday either
because of their summery outfits. Christening maybe? Madeleine's dress looks
too summery for early May, then again she had a plenty of Scottish blood in her
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]




Maddie's sock, and pink dress materiel are reflecting on the table, along with
the cake, plates and tea towel, and even perhaps a slight orange/pink
reflection of the blond lady's apron.
Wouldn't we expect to see a bit of reflection of the black and white checks of
the pants of ganga that Kate always seems to be wearing.


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

Please don't be sorry bobbin as I for one would like to discuss this picture some more.
Was looking at this the other day with my twelve year old son. So much is wrong with it, where do you start?
1)IMO (and my son's), Kate's head is FAR too big for (or photoshopped badly onto!) her shoulders. The angle is just, wrong! I can see that is seems she is crouched somewhat, but however you try the angle (we simulated this) we just couldn't get that big head/small shoulders effect. Where is her neck? Must be Very long and flexible to be set that low.

2)Maddie's leg seems to be at an impossible angle and length, if you look at where her hips start. For her leg and foot to be bent out to the side like that, would make her leg way too long! Also, her toes just don't seem right. Actually, that foot looks wrong completely.

3)Other posters have said it looks plastic, but on my screen I can't see Kate's right arm at ALL - it seems more to be the worktop?

What do you think?

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

Rainbow-Fairy - I'll let those who are more technically minded answer 1) and 2) but as for 3) it's Madeleine's left arm that has been commented upon. The top half is a different colour to the lower half and there's a strange line by the elbow, near where Kate's right hand is.

Just in case anyone is confused by the arms, the other one (with a wristwatch) belongs to the other woman, whoever she is.

Some work has been done as there is clearly blurring on Kate's right leg - just on the edge. A rectangular area. Makes no sense.
Maddie - there's a reversal of the tennis photo somewhere posted by Portia, there too she has a discoloured arm. If the tennis photo was reversed it would be her left arm, which is discoloured in this picture too. Why also only one hand a fist, not a natural gesture.
There is another photo of the kitchen at the same time, with just Maddie looking weird in her too long red dress and I'm pretty sure, eyeliner.

The whole scene looks like a set-up, no cutlery, just 20-odd plates for who? Where are they all? Like all the 'festive' pictures of the McCanns, it's oddly lacking in atmosphere. And as Bobbin said, is Kate left-handed? Otherwise definitely posed for effect.

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

In this photo, in the Daily Mail article above, Maddie is wearing the same dress as in the 'cake photo'. You can see the kitchen door handles are the same behind her head, as in the 'cake photo'. I would guess then that this is Maddie, but at an age which is hard to identify. She is also holding a pen? and two hoop earrings? which may be what was just visible by the right ear in the 'lying back along the floor' photo.

I can't find that one for the moment, and wonder what dress she was wearing at the time.

Why I query, why the black and white check trousers of Kate are not making a reflection, is because, I wonder if the pattern has been added in after the event, to try to link time lines, so that a smaller Maddie was tied to the check trousers timing of the Portugal holiday.
The girl in the 'playground' photos, in PdL has firmer front teeth than the 'red dress Maddie', and seems altogether to be of a bigger and older build.
The 'cake photo' is clearly warm weather time, making the twins birthday or whatever, a delayed event. The blond lady is wearing a thin lacy top. Kate is well sun tanned.
The blond lady is so similar in facial/bone structure to Kate, she must be a very close relative. I actually checked with a mirror to see if it were a mirror image of Kate (a little aged and faded).
It is all bizarre, and Maddie's foot does seem oddly angled, relative to how she is being held, but most of all,
SHOULD THERE NOT BE A REFLECTION of Kate's trousers in the table top, in keeping with how the rest of the picture shows reflections?

Wow. Look at the "birthday cake" photo. The strange 'line' by madeleine's elbow. Comments of 'plastic looking'. Did poor Madeleine have a prosphetic left arm?

Photos that don't look like her show a normal arm/hand brushi g her fringe aside. Photos can be easily mirrored forleft or right.

Could it be possible Madeleine had a prosthesis? Look closely atthe lower left arm & especially the hand on that photo.

If that isn't a prosphetic arm then it's photoshopped on. The hand on that arm. Look at it. It's adult like with long what appears to be painted nails

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

just discovered how to capture and move photos. This dress is not the 'cake photo' dress.

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

Maddie's arm is good and normal looking here, yet in the 'cake photo' it is quite different. Why?

I've tried to take the context of the photograph into account. Kate has a knife in her hand, appearing ready to cut a cake, the plates are there ready and yet there are lit candles on the cake and a spare candle holder near the cake. The cake is too far away imo for Madeleine to blow out the candles. Kate is holding Madeleine by the elbow (perhaps to stop her falling forward or perhaps not - the line in the crease of Madeleine's left elbow is suspicious imo) however, why wouldn't you put the knife down, pull the cake forward and have a photo taken of Madeleine blowing out the candles? There wouldn't have been a rush to cut a birthday cake surely.

I tried to answer the context that perhaps it was the twins' cake (looks like it in blue and pink) and Madeleine played up to blow out candles feeling left out just as Kate was about to cut the cake. Aunty or someone else put a couple of candles in and let Madeleine have a go but that doesn't quite add up as the lighter is on the other side of the cake. Still doesn't add up that the knife was still in Kate's hand.

I then looked at the size of the heads in this photo. Kate's head is too big for the body imo and if you measure each head from the hairline to the chin they are almost exact. It might be the angle that does that but Kate's head imo does not fit the body.

There is also a strange reflection in the toaster. My sad software can't make it out but it doesn't look like the reflection of the lemon. Sadly when I enlarge it there is just pixelation.

I forgot to add that if this is the best photo that the Mc's can come up with of a happy birthday occasion then I want to weep.

Does the knife have a shadow by the toaster, if so, was a strong flash used, the distances are all wrong for the shadows.

bobbin wrote:Does the knife have a shadow by the toaster, if so, was a strong flash used, the distances are all wrong for the shadows.

I imagine as there is reflection in the kitchen counter there is lighting above it. There is a reflection in the toaster on the right hand side of it that I can't make out. It's not the knife imo. Anyone have decent software?

Look4Maddy wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" border="0" />I Have been searching for a long time, and i got a few pictures that actually COME from Kate's camera so it says... I looked deeply into it and you can see when the pictures are taken, what time, and what settings the camera had. even what camera had. This is only possible if there is NO photoshopping done on it! so it means these pictures are real or only a cut out... So it only could be that the background has been cut out to certain Madeleine but there is further no edits done on it! I will post a picture of it... You can see when it's taken and that the name is even "kate_Camera" i have a few more of these, they are aswell really good size, like normal picture size...

I really don't know what you mean by saying no photoshopping has been done on this picture. For a start, the coloboma which doesn't exist, is clear to see.
It's perfectly easy to do that without getting the record of the work on the camera. All this gives us is the camera setting at the time of taking the picture. That's all the camera does.

and camera time/date settings depend on what you tell the camera they are.

tigger wrote:

Look4Maddy wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" border="0" />I Have been searching for a long time, and i got a few pictures that actually COME from Kate's camera so it says... I looked deeply into it and you can see when the pictures are taken, what time, and what settings the camera had. even what camera had. This is only possible if there is NO photoshopping done on it! so it means these pictures are real or only a cut out... So it only could be that the background has been cut out to certain Madeleine but there is further no edits done on it! I will post a picture of it... You can see when it's taken and that the name is even "kate_Camera" i have a few more of these, they are aswell really good size, like normal picture size...

I really don't know what you mean by saying no photoshopping has been done on this picture. For a start, the coloboma which doesn't exist, is clear to see.
It's perfectly easy to do that without getting the record of the work on the camera. All this gives us is the camera setting at the time of taking the picture. That's all the camera does.

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

from the details of the camera I googled the make and model (link above) interesting that it says the model of this camera was launched in 2005

For a start, the coloboma which doesn't exist, is clear to see.

We don't know whether it exists or not - at first the McCanns made an enormous issue of it - 4 years on it was only a fleck which could only be seen close up. The photo is close up, so it does suggest that she did actually have a coloboma.

Miraflores wrote:

For a start, the coloboma which doesn't exist, is clear to see.

We don't know whether it exists or not - at first the McCanns made an enormous issue of it - 4 years on it was only a fleck which could only be seen close up. The photo is close up, so it does suggest that she did actually have a coloboma.

You're welcome to your opinion. I beg to differ.

Miraflores wrote:

For a start, the coloboma which doesn't exist, is clear to see.

We don't know whether it exists or not - at first the McCanns made an enormous issue of it - 4 years on it was only a fleck which could only be seen close up. The photo is close up, so it does suggest that she did actually have a coloboma.

You're welcome to your opinion.

I beg to differ, I wouldn't call this 'only a fleck' - besides, the coloboma is seen in many photographs in different positions ranging from 6 o'clock to 7. The simple truth is that it's added to all those photographs.

tigger wrote:

Miraflores wrote:

For a start, the coloboma which doesn't exist, is clear to see.

We don't know whether it exists or not - at first the McCanns made an enormous issue of it - 4 years on it was only a fleck which could only be seen close up. The photo is close up, so it does suggest that she did actually have a coloboma.

You're welcome to your opinion.

I beg to differ, I wouldn't call this 'only a fleck' - besides, the coloboma is seen in many photographs in different positions ranging from 6 o'clock to 7. The simple truth is that it's added to all those photographs.

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

aquila wrote:I've tried to take the context of the photograph into account. Kate has a knife in her hand, appearing ready to cut a cake, the plates are there ready and yet there are lit candles on the cake and a spare candle holder near the cake. The cake is too far away imo for Madeleine to blow out the candles. Kate is holding Madeleine by the elbow (perhaps to stop her falling forward or perhaps not - the line in the crease of Madeleine's left elbow is suspicious imo) however, why wouldn't you put the knife down, pull the cake forward and have a photo taken of Madeleine blowing out the candles? There wouldn't have been a rush to cut a birthday cake surely.

I tried to answer the context that perhaps it was the twins' cake (looks like it in blue and pink) and Madeleine played up to blow out candles feeling left out just as Kate was about to cut the cake. Aunty or someone else put a couple of candles in and let Madeleine have a go but that doesn't quite add up as the lighter is on the other side of the cake. Still doesn't add up that the knife was still in Kate's hand.

I then looked at the size of the heads in this photo. Kate's head is too big for the body imo and if you measure each head from the hairline to the chin they are almost exact. It might be the angle that does that but Kate's head imo does not fit the body.

There is also a strange reflection in the toaster. My sad software can't make it out but it doesn't look like the reflection of the lemon. Sadly when I enlarge it there is just pixelation.

I forgot to add that if this is the best photo that the Mc's can come up with of a happy birthday occasion then I want to weep.

Who lights up a birthday cake for their children with a lighter instead of a match? Isn't using a match considered part of the fun for the children?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" border="0" />This is another baby picture of Madeleine and Gerry I came across while going through my Madeleine Pictures... She wasn't really old i think, couple of weeks atleast!

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" border="0" />I'm not sure when these were taken, I think not long before may 2007, but it's clear that all these pictures (whom I've placed into a collab) are taken on the same day. It must have been some kind of playground, but it wasn't really warm since Madeleine had long sleeves. There are a few more pictures, i think were taken that day, but she's wearing a sweater then. I can upload them aswell if you guys like?

Yes, please. If you can find a few more. I'm guessing she is around 3 and a bit there, say august/september 2006.

These photographs - like the video on page on of the 'substitue child' topic, only prove my point. She doesn't look anything like the poster photo and I still feel there is something wrong with the proportions of her head. When I say this it's often interpreted as an insult to Maddie. Far from it. But her photographs often show a child who doesn't look well - certainly not so outstandingly beautiful that she would 'light up a room' as Jon Corner and DP describe her.

Het beauty is stressed in all the publicity, just reading the DM comments the other day - lots of posts about 'this beautiful girl must be found.' Imo that implies there will be a lot less interest if she were plain?

What if Sharon Matthews had been 'outstandingly beautiful?' Would she have had more publicity - would we have looked harder?

Maddie's beauty was her selling point, the one thing everyone could see. That's why it's always THAT photograph which is pushed by the papers, it makes them rich. Imo they wouldn't get anywhere near the interest if the age progression was published instead, or for instance, the centre one of your compilation here.

Have a look at the video and my notes on page on of the sub topic, I'd really like to hear your comments.

tigger wrote:Yes, please. If you can find a few more. I'm guessing she is around 3 and a bit there, say august/september 2006.

These photographs - like the video on page on of the 'substitue child' topic, only prove my point. She doesn't look anything like the poster photo and I still feel there is something wrong with the proportions of her head. When I say this it's often interpreted as an insult to Maddie. Far from it. But her photographs often show a child who doesn't look well - certainly not so outstandingly beautiful that she would 'light up a room' as Jon Corner and DP describe her.

Het beauty is stressed in all the publicity, just reading the DM comments the other day - lots of posts about 'this beautiful girl must be found.' Imo that implies there will be a lot less interest if she were plain?

What if Sharon Matthews had been 'outstandingly beautiful?' Would she have had more publicity - would we have looked harder?

Maddie's beauty was her selling point, the one thing everyone could see. That's why it's always THAT photograph which is pushed by the papers, it makes them rich. Imo they wouldn't get anywhere near the interest if the age progression was published instead, or for instance, the centre one of your compilation here.

Have a look at the video and my notes on page on of the sub topic, I'd really like to hear your comments.

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

What do you think?

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

I came across this picture. Left is Madeleine, right is Lily Payne, only 2 months younger then Madeleine. The picture of Lily was taken in praia da luz in their own appartment. It somehow makes me wonder...



Then there is this picture...

Both one of Lily and one of Madeleine