Did Madeleine have coloboma?

by Guest 02.06.11 23:51

We know that the McCanns made a huge media campaign to show the mark in Madeleine's eye. Yet in the interview with Piers Morgan, they made very light of it and said it was hardly noticeable - why the sudden change? I have just seen this video for the first time, and looking at the photo it appears that there is no mark.

This is one of the comments about the video posted on youtube.............

The Mccanns have recently confirmed that Madeleine did NOT have a coloboma - she just has a fleck in her iris which is more pronounced on photographs and you have to be really close up to see it in the flesh. (Piers Morgan interview, CNN May 2011) How strange that they have not publicly corrected this long-standing false belief in the coloboma previously, considering they are so desperate for people to find her!
uberwench7 6 days ago

[youtube][/youtube]

by lj 03.06.11 5:36

For me this is the most shocking revelation of this whole saga. That means either they knew she could not be found, or they don't want her to be found. No other possibilities.

And there are still McCann-idiots out there who say they see it, while their conning heroes say she does not have it. Who's the nutter?

by Garth 03.06.11 7:41

Oh dear

So the McCanns made a claim that Madeleine had a coloboma to help identify her yet people on here are suspicious about that claim and believe it could possibly be a ploy to prevent her being found!

Borders barmy!

Sorry folks........ just my honest opinion.

But then its about as believable as the claim that Gerald McCann was spotted by the Smiths carrying his dead daughter through the streets of PDL.

And you think people visiting this site will take you seriously?

by lj 03.06.11 7:51

Have you listened what your leaders said recently?

They now deny she had a coloboma. They now also say they never emphasized the eye defect.

Seems you're a tad behind on your homework.

Who's the nutter now?

by Guest 03.06.11 9:18

Garth's cage seems to have been somewhat rattled.

MORGAN: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.

K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but --

MORGAN: Slightly distinctive eye colors and a little fleck.

MORGAN: And do you know if that would be still there if she's now eight years old?

G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris. I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems.

So, from being one of the biggest marketing ploys to find a missing child, and let's face it - it was BIG, we now have

"to be honest we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye"

How can she say to be honest, when she knows full well every poster and image specifically drew attention to this. Including the word LOOK which had the line in the O - :wtf2:

by Guest 03.06.11 9:18

Good morning Garth. I'm glad you've rejoined the debate - no, I'm not being sarcastic, that doesn't help anyone's case as I've stated before. I do happen to agree with you that I don't believe that, whoever the Smith family saw, it was Gerry McCann. As for the coloboma story, the crucial, well-publicised, instantly identifiable characteristic about Madeleine has suddenly changed to a hardly noticable fleck. What on earth is going on?

by rose58 03.06.11 9:44

Why are the Mccanns backtracking on this eye defect? In fact why are the Mccanns lying about so much still. Bizarre people.

by Guest 03.06.11 9:53

Also this from the same interview, How can GM be so sure. Any of the sightings may have been Madeleine, especially the one where they were rushed back at speed to make an identification and yet GM has NEVER had a moment when he thought it may be her?????

MORGAN: Have there been moments when you've been pretty much confident that you may have found her?

G. MCCANN: Never.

K. MCCANN: I don't think so. And I don't think we've ever allowed ourselves to go there. I mean, earlier on when there was the odd kind of -- what turned out to be a hoax call, you always have that real hope of this could be it, it could all just be over. But since then, because of the total and emotional roller coaster really that we've been on, you just try and hold back really.

And a lot of the pictures that we've been sent that have been looked at, you kind of know it's not, but you just need total verification.

What a very odd thing to say, surely every time there was a sighting, especially at the beginning - wouldn't you have hope it was Madeleine?

by Guest 03.06.11 10:47

Yes it is indeed bizarre that the McCanns never believed that any of the possible sightings could be of Madeleine. Can anyone think of any reason why they were so sure of themselves other than that they knew perfectly well what had happened to her?

by Me 03.06.11 12:06

Garth wrote:But then its about as believable as the claim that Gerald McCann was spotted by the Smiths carrying his dead daughter through the streets of PDL.

And you think people visiting this site will take you seriously?

About as barmy as an abductor walking across the very road the parents used "every 15 minutes" to check their children. About as barmy as said abductor continuing to walk across the road when two men (including the father - who no doubt said abductor would recognise as the father if he's been staking out the family) are on said road TALKING.

Now that is barmy. Agree?

And you think people on this site will take you seriously?

by xtrouble 03.06.11 13:23

rose58 wrote:Why are the Mccanns backtracking on this eye defect? In fact why are the Mccanns lying about so much still. Bizarre people.

Is it possibly because they know SY are looking at the case, and perhaps have access to medical records etc ?

Contradictions, left, right and centre !

by lj 03.06.11 13:35

xtrouble wrote:
rose58 wrote:Why are the Mccanns backtracking on this eye defect? In fact why are the Mccanns lying about so much still. Bizarre people.

Is it possibly because they know SY are looking at the case, and perhaps have access to medical records etc ?

Contradictions, left, right and centre !

and at 7 o'clock

by Garth 03.06.11 19:11

Me

About as barmy as an abductor walking across the very road the parents used "every 15 minutes" to check their children. About as barmy as said abductor continuing to walk across the road when two men (including the father - who no doubt said abductor would recognise as the father if he's been staking out the family) are on said road TALKING.

Now that is barmy. Agree?

And you think people on this site will take you seriously?

----------------------------------------------------

It's barmy only if you believe the McCanns were being stalked. If not, then how would this abductor have known?

Not so barmy eh.........

And quite frankly, your scenario and mine hardly compare.............. unless you've completely lost the plot!

by Garth 03.06.11 19:16

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

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

From a visual perspective................ what's the bleedin difference? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 03.06.11 19:17

Garth wrote:Me

About as barmy as an abductor walking across the very road the parents used "every 15 minutes" to check their children. About as barmy as said abductor continuing to walk across the road when two men (including the father - who no doubt said abductor would recognise as the father if he's been staking out the family) are on said road TALKING.

Now that is barmy. Agree?

And you think people on this site will take you seriously?

----------------------------------------------------

It's barmy only if you believe the McCanns were being stalked. If not, then how would this abductor have known?

Not so barmy eh.........

And quite frankly, your scenario and mine hardly compare.............. unless you've completely lost the plot!

An abductor with excellent timing. So he didn't know how often the checks were if he didn't stalk them did he. So how did he manage to get into the apartment in a 5 minute window. How did he know which door to use, did he go round checking the doors in this 5 minutes? MO did a check at 9 pm, GM did one at 9.10 pm, and JT saw him at 9.15. Phew some quick work, and never knowing who else was going to pop up in the apartment.

by Garth 03.06.11 19:25

An abductor with excellent timing. So he didn't know how often the checks were if he didn't stalk them did he. So how did he manage to get into the apartment in a 5 minute window. How did he know which door to use, did he go round checking the doors in this 5 minutes? MO did a check at 9 pm, GM did one at 9.10 pm, and JT saw him at 9.15. Phew some quick work, and never knowing who else was going to pop up in the

--------------------

Have a little think about it and maybe you might realise that it takes seconds to get into an apartment. Do you think that this is the first time this or these people have ever gotten into an apartment? Do you think they just decided on the spur of the moment? lol

And of course, again, you're assuming that the abductor gained entry after the checks. How about he entered before Gm's check as has been suggested many times over and over and over............... you get the picture.

by Garth 03.06.11 19:26

How do you know they never had a key? You dont!!!

by Guest 03.06.11 19:43

Garth wrote:How do you know they never had a key? You dont!!!

Why would they have a key Garth, from where? When did they get this key? On the day? Days before? Weeks before? Were they just waiting for a family that would leave children alone whilst they went out? I doubt it, not many do - do they? So if it was a spur of the moment thing, which you said it was, how would they have a key?

by Guest 03.06.11 19:54

Garth, I'm going to leave the saga of the abductor to other posters - no doubt when "ME" logs in again, the debate will run and run. I would like your opinion on why the McCanns are now playing down their daughter's eye defect on the grounds that it wasn't very noticable when, since day one, there has been a massive publicity campaign to draw attention to the supposed fact that she had a very recognisable eye. Also on the same interview with Piers Morgan, they said that, right from the start, they never had any hope whenever there was a reported sighting of someone who might have been her. Can you think of any reason for this other than that they knew exactly what had happened to her and therefore the sightings had to be wrong?

by Garth 03.06.11 21:10

Marian, come on, in all honesty, do you honestly believe they would say they never had any real hope of finding her if they were guilty of a cover up?

No they wouldnt.

And I dont think it has any connection with the coloboma. Tis only you and others on here that appear to make some connection between the two.

by Martin 03.06.11 21:32

Garth wrote:Marian, come on, in all honesty, do you honestly believe they would say they never had any real hope of finding her if they were guilty of a cover up?

No they wouldnt.

And I dont think it has any connection with the coloboma. Tis only you and others on here that appear to make some connection between the two.

It's very difficult to believe anything they say!

by lj 03.06.11 21:43

Garth is now derailing this thread.
From the post above it is clear he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about, none whatsoever. He probably does not even understand what Gerry and Kate say about this.

So he starts about something else and goes on and on about it.

Sorry Garth, this thread is about 2 "doctors" who based the whole beginning of the campaign on a rather rare anomaly that they now say she did not have.

Why would parents lie about a distinctive right eye and thus creating a situation in which their daughter might not be identified? The only answers to that gives a very grimm picture of what the parents are up to.

by Guest 03.06.11 21:54

Living in a world of his own is Garth. I will post it again so he can explain, why there was so much fuss made of Madeleine's eye. A huge campaign fgs! LOOK posters everywhere with the line through the O.

K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but --

by lj 03.06.11 21:58

candyfloss wrote:Living in a world of his own is Garth. I will post it again so he can explain, why there was so much fuss made of Madeleine's eye. A huge campaign fgs! LOOK posters everywhere with the line through the O.

K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but --

Yep, they might have lied then, or they are lying now, but that statement that both pathetic parents make is a big fat lie.

Elephant in the room, anyone?

by Garth 03.06.11 22:00

I just gave you an opinin ffs. Cant you READ!

by lj 03.06.11 22:39

You're derailing again, and being abusive.

The subject gives no place for an opinion. A coloboma is there or it's not, alittle bit like being pregnant to make a bit easier for you to understand. The parents first say it's there, then it's not. They go on lying about ho they used it in the campaign, again something that's not subject to an opinion but a fact.

by Kitti 03.06.11 23:04

Then fact off the matter is garth, they made the public believe their was an eye defect when their wasn't.

They could off easilly said no, their was no defect, but they didn't ...they wanted and intended to Mislead the public...the mccanns started the ball rolling and it snowballed out of control but did they stop it, no...it was a good marketing ploy.

by The Shelfstacker 03.06.11 23:35

Garth, mate. You're struggling OK? Accept it.

by Garth 04.06.11 8:23

.

Madeleine McCann HAS got a brown flek in the eye. They DO NOT DENY THIS.

All they are saying is that you have to look close up to notice it. However, when she went missing it was a distinguishing feature that would identify her and rightly so, they made a point about it, you know a bit like having a birth mark behind the ear or something. they haven't gone on about it too much
since their initial campaign because of the very reason I have just explained. People here dont seem to understand the desperation for the return of their daughter in those early days. But then, it would appear there's a lot they simply cannot get there heads around.

And further , no ones rattled my cage, its just the sheer ignorance and the wild ideas particularly the 'biggest revelation' as some misguided poster on here appears to think, that I find pathetic.

I dont mind debating and playing devils advocate sometimes in order to look at both sides of this sad case but unfortunately, its the same people who repeat the same old nonsense and 'think' they have uncovered yet another clue to the McCanns big conspiracy that makes this site appear to be nothing more than a haven for conspiraloons.

Its a lovely day, maybe some ought to get out and get some fresh air. Staring at the computer 24/7 has its effects.......as can clearly be seen.

by Guest 04.06.11 9:17

Thanks to all those who have posted comments since my last one at 6.54 yesterday. Apart from one notable exception, you all understood what I was trying to say; namely that it would be more constructive to ask about points that could not be dismissed as conspiratorial ramblings - the coloboma issue and the lack of hope that their daughter would ever be found alive. Sadly when a child of this age goes missing, the outcome is unlikely to be good but miracles can happen. Does anyone remember the case of a four-year-old called Simon Jones around 15 years ago? I can't remember where in England he lived but he disappeared from a park and had been given up for dead when he was found alive and well six weeks later iving in a hostel with the misfit who'd abducted him. Until a parent's worst fears are confirmed with the finding of the body, there is always a hope that the child is alive and possible sightings, particularly in the early days, will be taken very seriously. I don't think that it's posters other than Garth who need to get out more and blow the cobwebs away.