Re: Photographs and memories

by Ribisl 20.03.12 9:19

We have often commented on how few photos from PDL have been published. I do not believe Kate when she says she was an avid snapper. But maybe a number of other pictures of Madeleine do exist but have other children with her (creche, tennis, sailing, playground, etc) and it was so not to put their faces in the public domain that other parents have not made them available (eg Phil Edwards)?

Look4Maddy - you appear to know the Mccanns, if not directly but through a friend of theirs who has provided you with Madeleine's photos. I would be very interested to hear you opinion on this.

by rainbow-fairy 20.03.12 9:34

Ribisl wrote:We have often commented on how few photos from PDL have been published. I do not believe Kate when she says she was an avid snapper. But maybe a number of other pictures of Madeleine do exist but have other children with her (creche, tennis, sailing, playground, etc) and it was so not to put their faces in the public domain that other parents have not made them available (eg Phil Edwards)?

Look4Maddy - you appear to know the Mccanns, if not directly but through a friend of theirs who has provided you with Madeleine's photos. I would be very interested to hear you opinion on this.

Ribisl, I think you mean Philip Edmonds?
The excuse about other children being in the photo's doesn't really work. Its not hard to crop Maddie out, or if the whole picture with the setting was desirable, why not pixellate their faces? Its not hard. My gut feeling is that there aren't any. Why?

by Guest 20.03.12 9:35

The faces of any other children in photos with Madeleine could be pixillated - I think that's the right word! - so that their identities would be protected.

by Liz Eagles 20.03.12 9:46

Jean wrote:The faces of any other children in photos with Madeleine could be pixillated - I think that's the right word! - so that their identities would be protected.

Jean, you pipped me to the post there. Also, if there were many photos by the avid snapper, or indeed anyone else, they could have been used to spot adults who perhaps weren't holidaying at OC. KM seems to think Madeleine had been watched/followed. Even if those photographs (if they exist) were not released into the public domain, they could have been used by investigators to highlight/eliminate adults who perhaps had no reason for being at OC and were caught in the background of a photo.

However, how can you take loads of holiday snaps if your kids are parked off for most of the day and then go to bed early!

The T9's cameras ought to have been siezed imo. Perhaps they were, who knows?

by Guest 20.03.12 10:07

I in turn was pipped to the post by Rainbow-Fairy! It's odd to put it mildly that there are so few photos and none from anyone else in the party other than David Payne's series of black and white photos, most of which are impossible to make out. There is an interesting one amongst them which purports to show most of the group and all the McCanns excludiing Amelie (where was she I wonder?) but I can't now find it.

by russiandoll 20.03.12 13:14

Moa from your post...

If she has makeup on or not on this particular photo I really dont see it having any relevance to this case.. As I see it this picture looks normal, and she looks happy, nothing wrong with it even if she has mascara on..

I think there is something very wrong with applying mascara to a toddler. And unless a light make up has been advised by a doctor to cover a huge strawberry mark for example, there is no excuse for applying make up to a child imo.
Having said that, children can have very dark long lashes naturally even if fair haired, the point is there should be consistency in the photos if all is natural.

by rainbow-fairy 20.03.12 14:46

russiandoll wrote: Moa from your post...

If she has makeup on or not on this particular photo I really dont see it having any relevance to this case.. As I see it this picture looks normal, and she looks happy, nothing wrong with it even if she has mascara on..

I think there is something very wrong with applying mascara to a toddler. And unless a light make up has been advised by a doctor to cover a huge strawberry mark for example, there is no excuse for applying make up to a child imo.
Having said that, children can have very dark long lashes naturally even if fair haired, the point is there should be consistency in the photos if all is natural.

russiandoll, I completely agree. IMO, there is something very creepy about making up a toddler. I can understand nail varnish to a point, but facial make-up? No way.

I wasn'tallowed make up until I was past sixteen (even then, my Dad hated it)[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Ribisl 20.03.12 15:24

rainbow-fairy wrote:
The excuse about other children being in the photo's doesn't really work. Its not hard to crop Maddie out, or if the whole picture with the setting was desirable, why not pixellate their faces? Its not hard. My gut feeling is that there aren't any. Why?

Maybe they weren't asked to produce them by the PJ because then nobody was suspecting earlier death or substitute? Or maybe they did hand them over to the PJ but they didn't publish them, quite correctly imv? Or there really aren't any more photos of Madeleine from that week. nah

by Genbug 20.03.12 16:37

russiandoll wrote: Moa from your post...

If she has makeup on or not on this particular photo I really dont see it having any relevance to this case.. As I see it this picture looks normal, and she looks happy, nothing wrong with it even if she has mascara on..

I think there is something very wrong with applying mascara to a toddler. And unless a light make up has been advised by a doctor to cover a huge strawberry mark for example, there is no excuse for applying make up to a child imo.
Having said that, children can have very dark long lashes naturally even if fair haired, the point is there should be consistency in the photos if all is natural.

Russiandoll, at one time I would have agreed with the statement that I have highlighted in bold above. I have a three year old grandaughter whose hair naturally is very highlighted in several shades of gold and blonde. This is more apparent when the sun shines on it, sometimes you see it in photos, sometimes you don't. But the thing about the makeup...I recently printed off some pictures of her for my Mum and she said "Oh, she looks like she has makeup on!". And she does, she looks like she is wearing mascara, eyeliner and lipstick. If I hadn't have taken the photos myself and knew that she wasn't I would have said the same. I looked back through the hundreds of photos I have of her and some of them, even taken in the same session, she looks made up. In others, taken outside on the same day, she doesn't. She has naturally thick dark lashes (doesn't take after her grandmother!) and deep pink lips. Her bottom lashes are so thick that it looks like she is wearing eyeliner, especially in the more shady indoor pictures.

I'm not saying Madeleine wasn't wearing makeup in several photos as it certainly looks like she is. But I do know that depending on light and shade when the photo is taken, it can look as if a child is when she isn't, as I have found from experience.

by Guest 20.03.12 17:40

rainbow-fairy wrote:
russiandoll wrote: Moa from your post...

If she has makeup on or not on this particular photo I really dont see it having any relevance to this case.. As I see it this picture looks normal, and she looks happy, nothing wrong with it even if she has mascara on..

I think there is something very wrong with applying mascara to a toddler. And unless a light make up has been advised by a doctor to cover a huge strawberry mark for example, there is no excuse for applying make up to a child imo.
Having said that, children can have very dark long lashes naturally even if fair haired, the point is there should be consistency in the photos if all is natural.

russiandoll, I completely agree. IMO, there is something very creepy about making up a toddler. I can understand nail varnish to a point, but facial make-up? No way.

I wasn'tallowed make up until I was past sixteen (even then, my Dad hated it)[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

First your taking that quote out of an sentence making it pointless ...

But people do put makeup on their toddles , whether you like it or not is a personal opinion doesn't mean it is done in a bad meaning way. And that was my point thinking of the blue eyeshadow pic of Madeleine , because that one gives a bad feeling of the whole setting that picture is taking in...

by Tinkerbell81 25.03.12 11:57

Is there anyone who has a large HQ of the tennis photo ??? I cant seem to find one

by Look4Maddy 25.03.12 15:03

Tinkerbell81 wrote:Is there anyone who has a large HQ of the tennis photo ??? I cant seem to find one

. I have a good quality one, but i am not on my laptop at the moment. Once i am i willpostit if you like??

by Gillyspot 25.03.12 15:12

I'd like a look at the pic if you can share it here. roses

by Tinkerbell81 25.03.12 18:30

If you could post it l would be very grateful yes.... Working on something....

by Lance De Boils 25.03.12 21:35

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

Has anyone got a higher res of this photo?
From the one above, I am seeing something odd with Madeleine's legs. What does everyone else think?

by rainbow-fairy 25.03.12 22:49

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

Has anyone got a higher res of this photo?
From the one above, I am seeing something odd with Madeleine's legs. What does everyone else think?

Hey Lance.
This one has been discussed before but I'm happy to say what I see again.
The leg on the left (Maddie's right) looks like a tanned shapely lady's leg in a heel. The other one is about six shades lighter, thick and shapeless like a pale flabby sausage.
I also think her arms look wrong in relation to each other. I know its up at an angle, but it looks much shorter than the bent one.

Another thing I notice (and have in other photo's) is that Amelie seems to (almost definitely) have a harelip. This I find odd, considering Kate's description of her at birth in the bewk (perfect rosebud mouth). That is demonstrably false - so why lie? I don't get it...

by Lady-Heather 25.03.12 23:20

There's something certainly not right with Madeleine's right arm in that photo.. is it just my screen/resolution or does anyone else find this odd?

by Lance De Boils 25.03.12 23:21

Oh, sorry - haven't seen that discussion - don't suppose you can point me in the right direction? Glad it's not just me then!

by rainbow-fairy 26.03.12 7:40

Lance De Boils wrote:Oh, sorry - haven't seen that discussion - don't suppose you can point me in the right direction? Glad it's not just me then!

Hey, no probs - this is a very long thread after all!
Its some pages back, don't know which one.
Of course, we were shot down by a Pro 'expert' (no credentials given) but I trust what my eyes see.

by Lance De Boils 26.03.12 8:02

Yes, a long thread indeed and I must admit I only skim read much of it! I fear it'll take some time to wade through it again to find the relevant part! I'll give it a try later!

by justcurious 26.03.12 8:11

What do comments on Amelie's supposed harelip add to the debate. They are totally unnecessary and nasty.

And yes, I am pro McCann, Sean and Amelie that is, both will have enough problems without us adding more, pick on adults but leave the children alone. And as fact is a buzz word on here, I see Amelie often around Mountsorrel and she is without a doubt a very pretty child with no visible blemishes or defects. Writing about Amelie needlessly will confirm Kate's quotes about internet nutters.

by Guest 26.03.12 8:25

Yes I agree with the last comment about Amelie. A separate topic inadvisedly set up recently on the same issue was wisely locked. Please people don't add fuel to the pros' belief that we are all nutters.

by **tigger** 26.03.12 9:07

justcurious wrote:What do comments on Amelie's supposed harelip add to the debate. They are totally unnecessary and nasty.

And yes, I am pro McCann, Sean and Amelie that is, both will have enough problems without us adding more, pick on adults but leave the children alone. And as fact is a buzz word on here, I see Amelie often around Mountsorrel and she is without a doubt a very pretty child with no visible blemishes or defects. Writing about Amelie needlessly will confirm Kate's quotes about internet nutters.

Totally agree, it's just not on to write about these children. They've a right to privacy and have really nothing to do with the case.
I have commented from time to time on their relative sizes and how - to me - Dutch they look, especially Sean. But that is simply based on photographs from 5 years ago - and was relevant to the case.
I've never noticed anything 'wrong' with either of them in the photographs in any case. Very good looking children.

by russiandoll 26.03.12 10:00

agreed about no discussion of twins appearance. however to be fair to Rainbow Fairy I think she only mentioned Amelie to make a point about Kate.

by joyce1938 26.03.12 10:10

iI just wonder whether the photoshopped pictures as we feel ,are a good ploy of some to keep people busy talking ,and may have been prepared for just thatpurpose ,i dont mean members on here a faous faily maybe?There seems no reason for some of the oddities to show up.joyce1938,i may have not explained this too well.