Lily Payne and creche attendance

by bobbin 13.03.12 9:13

Now there's a question. How often did Lily Payne go to creche, and how does that correlate with Madeleine.

by russiandoll 13.03.12 9:45

looking at the sheets, just one so far :

very noticeable, JELLYFISH , FIRST DAY, 29TH APRIL ... a Lily is named under the twins, no parents apartment number, no phone contact details, no sign in or out by a parent, no times for arrival or pick -up.

by bobbin 13.03.12 10:04

I just had a quick glance at Stella's phone and creche analysis and it looks as though there could be a lot of interesting analysis to be done on the Lily / Madeleine issue. Also interesting that the Paynes seem to be so involved before and after the Maddie disappearance. Are they even more involved that we think.

by rainbow-fairy 13.03.12 10:09

My God! I don't know if its just the way my blackberry displays, but those top two pictures are eerily similar! The hair can be disregarded. However, the only real facial difference I could discern was the nose - quite different - However, if you cover the pictures from the nose down, they are almost identical. The chin, cheeks, jawline - even lips and teeth! Hmmm...

by russiandoll 13.03.12 11:13

am sure Stella will have noticed this already, but am almost finished
with a post re those Jellyfish sheets and the lack of info for Lily
apart from morning sessions 30th April and 1st May. Some very sloppy
record- keeping for other children also, same nannies so why this change
for some but not all children bizarre. Need dog walk and fresh air,
been reading too long, will post after lunch.

by Genbug 13.03.12 11:25

Look4Maddy wrote:[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

Lily Payne is NOT only two months younger than Madeleine, she's 15 months younger! I think you are thinking of the eldest O'Brien child who is two months younger than Madeleine.

by Guest 13.03.12 13:17

Is it claimed that both photos on the right hand side are of the same child? I don't think they are - isn't the top one Jane Tanner's daughter? I certainly agree that she's hard to distinguish from Madeleine when both are wearing sunglasses.

by russiandoll 13.03.12 13:58

the photos of the other girl/s are from this forum I think, can you please direct me to them as I can't locate them. There is one of David Payne with his daughter on his knee also somewhere.
thanks.

by Guest 13.03.12 14:24

Here russiandoll....

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

by russiandoll 13.03.12 14:44

thank you very much candyfloss. Some of the photos dont id the children, does not look like the photos look4maddy posted ar eof Lily, but of the older girl on David Payne's knee, who is also the girl in sunglasses on other photos ....who is this girl?

by Ribisl 13.03.12 15:18

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 image.]

I agree the photos that are shown with this one above are all a bit strange. Her head looks elongated and her forehead appears enormous as if she has alopecia and is wearing a wig (which I don't believe, btw). The centre picture is the strangest of all because it doesn't look like Madeleine at all.

by Genbug 13.03.12 15:56

russiandoll wrote:thank you very much candyfloss. Some of the photos dont id the children, does not look like the photos look4maddy posted ar eof Lily, but of the older girl on David Payne's knee, who is also the girl in sunglasses on other photos ....who is this girl?

I believe the girl in the stripy jumper is Lily, we saw her in the video with Madeleine going up the plane steps. Lily would have been two and eight months at the time. I believe the photo of the other girl must surely be the eldest Tanner/O'Brien child, just judging by the size of her. There is one where you can see her whole body and she's a big girl, and just a month younger than Madeleine. She doesn't look like the girl in the sunglasses to me though, I think that is Lily. Also the bigger girl looks like she has longer hair tied back?

Just looked again at the other girl, in the picture five down on the greyscale pictures. She's quite a hefty child, definately not a two year old. Also if you look carefully, it looks like her hair is tied back in a ponytail and is quite long at the back.

by worriedmum 13.03.12 17:33

I think the hair only looks odd because Madeleine looks like she has what is sometimes called a 'calf-lick'-- an genetic arrangement of the hair roots which means that the hair at the front always lies stubbornly the same way, even if is cut or styled.

by Ribisl 13.03.12 23:36

@worriedmum
Thank you for that bit of info. That can explain it.

by **tigger** 14.03.12 5:51

worriedmum wrote:I think the hair only looks odd because Madeleine looks like she has what is sometimes called a 'calf-lick'-- an genetic arrangement of the hair roots which means that the hair at the front always lies stubbornly the same way, even if is cut or styled.

I don't think so, we have loads of photographs of Maddie with a perfect fringe which is not possible with a 'calf-lick' so beloved of the Mods in the fifties.

I'm simply saying that the girl looks unwell in many photographs and I'm thinking of Kate writing several times of 'Maddie and her fear of pain' and the fact that her health records were withheld.
It's quite possible that she was treated at a hospital and the treatment involved shaving part of her hair off.
With some photographs it looks as if she had a malformation of the skull but if you take a wig into account, it explains the wrong proportions, the many changes in hairstyles, the fact that the hair length varies and the fact that many photographs without the luscious hair show her in a hat.
It also explains the highlights and lowlights in her hair at times, this is very expensive to do and I've never seen this on a child that age.

Thanks to TV we are very used to seeing 'large' hair. Think of Rachel in 'Friends' hair extensions and 'large hair' make one look slimmer which is why they are so popular.

by Look4Maddy 14.03.12 8:33

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

Assuming the settings of the photo the picture was taken on 21st of april 2007 at 3pm.

((Please click on the picture to see it fullsize!!))

by Genbug 14.03.12 8:34

Tigger wrote:

It also explains the highlights and lowlights in her hair at times, this is very expensive to do and I've never seen this on a child that age.

Sorry tigger, I know it seems that I am always disagreeing with you, but I completely disagree with that statement. My grandaughter is just coming up to the age that Madeleine was when she disappeared. Her hair looks like she has had hightlights and lowlights in the most expensive salon ever, there must be 20 different shades in it from pure white to dark blonde streaks, pale gold to dark gold streaks, with the base colour being a pale caramel colour in various shades. Just a few hours in the sun can change her hair completely. I'd love to be able to post a picture of her beautiful hair just to prove this, but I have no idea how to blank out her face.

However...I do agree that some of the photos, the colour of her hair seems strange. In some, like the book cover picture she seems to be almost mousy and a solid block of colour with no highlights. In others, like the football shirt picture she appears to be pure pale blonde with no highlights. I can understand a little childs hair highlighting in the sun, but not to that extent - all over in the same shade. Strangely, one of Kate's friends in an early interview said that Madeleine had "white blonde hair". And yet in the majority of pictures she looks quite mousy. All very odd!

by russiandoll 14.03.12 9:48

I want to comment on chins really, the one in the photo you posted Look4 Maddy. What were you trying to point out , something about the hair and head I guess from the nature of recent comments.
What I did notice after reading Tigger's comment about the Rachel cut [ the nicest her Ms Anistons hair ever was btw imo]....this photo shows a child with a distinct Aniston jawline, maybe cute in a child but very unattractive in an adult imo as the jawline instead of being smooth, is interrupted by a very pointed chin. It might make looking at the photos some don't believe are of the real Madeleine interesting, as this is a really distinctive feature.

by Look4Maddy 14.03.12 10:04

russiandoll wrote:I want to comment on chins really, the one in the photo you posted Look4 Maddy. What were you trying to point out , something about the hair and head I guess from the nature of recent comments.
What I did notice after reading Tigger's comment about the Rachel cut [ the nicest her Ms Anistons hair ever was btw imo]....this photo shows a child with a distinct Aniston jawline, maybe cute in a child but very unattractive in an adult imo as the jawline instead of being smooth, is interrupted by a very pointed chin. It might make looking at the photos some don't believe are of the real Madeleine interesting, as this is a really distinctive feature.

Yes I am sorry, Im just trying to show you, that i can't believe that hair is a wig. It looks way to real. My sister has had a few wigs due to alopecia and you can clearly see it from that point of view, and in that picture it is atleast not a wig, seeing aswell the date and time it was taken, it must be close to their trip to Pria da Luz

by rainbow-fairy 14.03.12 11:11

Look4Maddy, please don't think I'm picking on you but I've asked once before for a link for these photo's. You are stating what date and time these pics were taken. But where is the proof?
I could post a picture of an Ewok and say I photographed it on my lawn this morning. Doesn't make it true.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but without a link how can we verify this???

I'd just like to say, if this IS Maddie, taken a week before PdL, then the alleged last pool pic and 'tennis ball' fall into even more doubt. Doesn't look like the same girl at the same stage to me.

by juliet 14.03.12 11:16

I don't think for a minute Madeleine's hair is a wig. The mystery to me is how her hair grew from the short bob seen in the "Christmas 2006" video, to the long hair in the Everton shirt photos. It is NOT possible for hair to grow so quickly.

BTW, very interested, like russiandoll, in the child photographed on Payne's knee. It is assumed it's the elder Tanner child, but is it? And I feel very sorry for this girl, whoever it is. She's being clutched far too tightly by Payne, and is obviously trying to push his hand and arm away. I wonder why whoever took the photo didn't rescue her.

by Look4Maddy 14.03.12 11:32

rainbow-fairy wrote:Look4Maddy, please don't think I'm picking on you but I've asked once before for a link for these photo's. You are stating what date and time these pics were taken. But where is the proof?
I could post a picture of an Ewok and say I photographed it on my lawn this morning. Doesn't make it true.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but without a link how can we verify this???

I'd just like to say, if this IS Maddie, taken a week before PdL, then the alleged last pool pic and 'tennis ball' fall into even more doubt. Doesn't look like the same girl at the same stage to me.

I have recieved them from a friend of the McCann's themselfs. They cannot be found online. its not all the pictures, just a few. The belle dress one, Everton one, icecream one, and the one were she's posing on her back. And ofcourse the famous reddress picture. :)

by rainbow-fairy 14.03.12 11:44

Look4Maddy wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:Look4Maddy, please don't think I'm picking on you but I've asked once before for a link for these photo's. You are stating what date and time these pics were taken. But where is the proof?
I could post a picture of an Ewok and say I photographed it on my lawn this morning. Doesn't make it true.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but without a link how can we verify this???

I'd just like to say, if this IS Maddie, taken a week before PdL, then the alleged last pool pic and 'tennis ball' fall into even more doubt. Doesn't look like the same girl at the same stage to me.

I have recieved them from a friend of the McCann's themselfs. They cannot be found online. its not all the pictures, just a few. The belle dress one, Everton one, icecream one, and the one were she's posing on her back. And ofcourse the famous reddress picture. :)

So in that case, we have no way of corroborating them. Frankly, if any member of Team McCann told me I was alive, I'd assume the opposite until I'd checked my own pulse.

You say its a friend of the McCanns. Do you yourself know the McCanns? And what is your take on what happened?
Another thing, the photo's you have mentioned certainly don't all look like the same child at all (especially the Everton ones).
Could you please post all these photo's, INCLUDING the dates you have that allege when they were taken.
Thanks for getting back to me.

by worriedmum 14.03.12 22:57

I was interested to read Look4Maddy's contributions on the subject of photos on this thread.

He/she posted a reply to my thread on the 'Make-up' photo. I asked if anyone who had a laptop with a camera in it could tell me whether they thought it possible that this picture could have been taken this way,( to account for the upward angle of the picture.) Look4Maddy, thank you for your (fairly emphatic )reply that you didn't think so. I still think an adult would have to be very low down to capture the face of a child who is only a metre tall, at this angle? Or is Madeleine standing on something?

Does this mean that you actually know more about this photo please, Look4Maddy?

by Look4Maddy 19.03.12 12:23

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

worriedmum wrote:I was interested to read Look4Maddy's contributions on the subject of photos on this thread.

He/she posted a reply to my thread on the 'Make-up' photo. I asked if anyone who had a laptop with a camera in it could tell me whether they thought it possible that this picture could have been taken this way,( to account for the upward angle of the picture.) Look4Maddy, thank you for your (fairly emphatic )reply that you didn't think so. I still think an adult would have to be very low down to capture the face of a child who is only a metre tall, at this angle? Or is Madeleine standing on something?

Does this mean that you actually know more about this photo please, Look4Maddy?

No I am sorry, I don't know more about the pictures; Ofcourse some of the photos i have, do have camera settings on them and date and times. But the makeup picture doesnt. The laptop should have been very very low, i will try out how the laptop should have been with a little girl i babysit, who's nearly 4years now. Seeing what Angle it must have been taken. You can see a thermostate in the background, so i think she could be sitting on someone's lap or on a table. It even looks like it was taken in portugal seeing the background of the picture. I can't remember their house looking like that..

by Guest 19.03.12 13:16

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

Curious that the picture on the left can be seen in the picture on the right, left hand corner.

Sentence deleted no need for such comments

by bristow 19.03.12 13:22

I think she has her right leg tucked under her and is holding her ankle through her dress.

Good observation of the other photo in that pic though!

by Look4Maddy 19.03.12 13:29

Said to be taken on 10-11-2006 at 13:48 (1:48 PM) taken with Kate's Canon PowerShot A620. You can see the picture there because it was displayed like that on FindMadeleine.com for Christmas... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 19.03.12 13:57

Look4Maddy wrote:Said to be taken on 10-11-2006 at 13:48 (1:48 PM) taken with Kate's Canon PowerShot A620. You can see the picture there because it was displayed like that on FindMadeleine.com for Christmas...

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

Two and a half years old then?

Brown hair, not blonde;
Eyes look made up (eyeshadow)
Coloboma full in place.
Walls beneath the eyes also in place.

Does this look like a smiling child?