Re: Did Madeleine have coloboma?

by sami 08.10.12 10:00

If I was going to place the photo of Kate with baby and cuddle cat into Ribsil's slide show above based on the age of the child, it would go in fourth place, between Gerry and the last of Madeleine in pink

However, the problem with this is that Kate does appear to be much younger than the preceeding photo, photo no. 2. I agree with you JD in that regard.
Even Kate's blue velour type top with the stripe down the side of the arm is very eighties looking, it does not fit with the supposed timeframe. Obviously just an observation and not a verifiable fact.

by jd 08.10.12 10:06

What I was referring to was some of the misinformation posted on the forum as facts and twisting of the so-called evidence to advance one's theory instead of building a theory based on irrefutable evidence, if not, at least on sound logic

Name some misinformation that has been posted? What is being twisted? How do you know for a fact that any of these pictures are when they said they were....It is just the mccanns word for it. Why is it twisting anything if the pictures do not like right and are inconsistent? Why does kate mccann look 10/15 years younger within 12 months? Searching for the truth takes you down many paths and many theories, some are good and some are bad, this is the whole point of the forum and discussion, if you or anyone does not like something then don't read the topic and let others debate and try to discover something by themselves

Personally I would worry be far more worried & concerned that the mccanns have twisted and are giving misinformation about the coloboma...they are the ones who are truly making it fit to their theories

by bobbin 08.10.12 10:35

jd wrote:
tigger wrote:
jd wrote:kate mccann looks so much that this was taken of her in 1998 or around these years, this is never her in 2005, not in a million years, child with coloboma or not. Looks more around the time of her passport photo, she looks far too young and fresh faced. I don't think this is Maddie either, looks nothing like her or any picture I have seen of her. This child also looks like a boy

I have to agree with that, It's not just that she looks younger, she doesn't have that expression on her face - discontented, the puffy eyes, the lines around her mouth etc. which were already evident in early 2007. It can't be 2005 just after delivering twins!

I'm guessing somewhere in her late twenties, posing with a baby of a friend. Quite possibly a boy. When I see that photograph it's a reminder of what could have been. No big disappointment with marriage and children written all over her face.

The child with kate mccann has grown hair as well as is at least 2 years old to have this amount of hair and be developed from a new born. Below is Maddie and kate mccann in other pictures at "alledgely" the same age and time...see any resemblance? because I don't see anything at all!!!! They are not totally different but totally different ages...and the child looks a totally different sex
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

tigger, you usually have an idea about photoshopping/ art/ body representation.
Since there is difficulty agreeing Kate's apparent age, relative to Maddie's age, looking at the join between Kate's face and the child, is there any possibility that the people in the picture have been added together.
The join looks odd, and I definitely find it difficult to see how the left hand could get to that position and why it seems to be smaller than the right hand.
It's not as if we have not seen evidence already of photoshopping.
Is this another photo where the apparent inconsistencies might have another explanation.
Furthermore, the wider dark shadow under Kate's chin seems at odds with the narrow and crisp line under Maddie's hand and the weak shadow under her chin.
On top of which, the coloboma is at 6 o'clock, as opposed to the other 7 o'clocks and a coloboma cannot change positions....therefore reasons to start asking further questions about the authenticity of this particular composition.

by Ribisl 08.10.12 11:48

jd wrote:So how do you explain kate mccann ageing about 10/15 years within a year than Ribisl? (apologies for the 'wild' speculation and bringing this forum down but imo it is impossible to age this much in 12 months)

Hi jd, I am not having a dig at you personally so please don't be offended. You are a great researcher and are helping us all by bringing to this forum a whole lot of information that we may not otherwise discover. So thank you for that.

In these photos of Kate and Madeleine, I see a very tired looking Kate in one (M's colic, remember?) and a better rested, in fact quite radiant looking Kate in the more composed picture with better lighting. I personally don't see her aging backwards between the two, but it doesn't mean to say I am right.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I believe the last photos (pool & tennis court) had been doctored because the parents had to produce them to prove Madeleine was not only alive but perfectly healthy and happy till the 3rd. I can also believe that in various pictures her relatively minor iris defect was enlarged for the marketing purposes. The worst example is probably is the poster they released immediately after her disappearance which not only shows a very prominent 'coloboma' but also her face with that brushed appearance typical of photoshopping. Apart from those I am yet to be convinced that they are not genuine. So it's over to you jd!

by **tigger** 08.10.12 12:11

tigger wrote:@Bobbin

If you look at the link given by Ribisl above, which is Getem's topic, you will see quite a few photographs with the coloboma either not there or in the six çlock position.

I don't understand that people who object to these posts don't simply come across with evidence that the theories are wrong. Saying that such theories degrade the forum is imo not helpful. We're here to find out if what has been served up by third parties is actually true. So far the official line hasn't exactly been truthful.

As the coloboma issue is actually one of the few with tangible and recorded evidence, since it was central to the publicity campaign, I think it is important to discuss it.

To add @ bobbin:
There are several reasons why I think this isn't Maddie. She doesn't have the 'swollen' eyes as seen in many photos, both eyes are the same colour, blueish - not the colours given by the parents. I'll have to look it up but they were quite specific about the eyes being different colours. Hazel and green I seem to remember.
The ear seems to be lower and not as 'angled' as other photos. Maddie had fairly large ears even when little, and they were set at a 45 degree angle from the face. These ears are flatter and lower.
Bear in mind that toddlers look amazingly alike, apart from those details. button nose, eyes large relative to the face and chubby cheeks.
The left arm and hand must be at a very awkward and positively painful angle for the child to lie like this. Their little arms aren't that long, I think the fingers are OK though, just the top half of the hand showing. I haven't time today, next week I'll hope to do something with the computer which has the photoshop on it. Like connecting it to the mains...

Kate was in Amsterdam when she became pregnant with the twins, around the end of April 2004 when Maddie would have been about 11 months old.

by Angelique 10.10.12 9:52

I have just found a reference to the Colobma while reading DP's statement to Leicester Police.

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

David Payne interview at Leicestershire Police Headquarters - Part 3/3 Duarte Levy Wordpress

1485 ”Okay. I’d like you to describe Madeleine to me. What sort of a child she is and you know how you see her.”
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.”

He refers to as a "iris defect".

by Hummingbird 10.10.12 10:08

Angelique wrote:I have just found a reference to the Colobma while reading DP's statement to Leicester Police.

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

David Payne interview at Leicestershire Police Headquarters - Part 3/3 Duarte Levy Wordpress

1485 ”Okay. I’d like you to describe Madeleine to me. What sort of a child she is and you know how you see her.”
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.”

He refers to as a "iris defect".

I seem to remember reading somewhere in another thread the time scales that occurred when KM started her IVF, got pregnant with MM and then started the next round of IVF which resulted in the twins.

Please correct me if I have mis-read this but I thought that the IVF resulted in a pregnancy BOTH times very quickly - I think someone commented on how quickly it happened.

If this is so and I am correct then why would DP say in his statement. 'They'd had a lot of trouble conceiving, you know with IVF and everything'

What does he mean - and everything.

And more importantly what does he mean by - she was very unique. Other people have iris defects - it does not make them very unique!!!!!

That last part of the statement is very very strange, he tells us she is unique because of an iris defect but that she was a happy go lucky girl - almost as if saying she shouldn't be because of the defect! Reading between the lines me thinks he is telling us something here.

by Da Troof 10.10.12 10:13

Angelique wrote:I have just found a reference to the Colobma while reading DP's statement to Leicester Police.

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

David Payne interview at Leicestershire Police Headquarters - Part 3/3 Duarte Levy Wordpress

1485 ”Okay. I’d like you to describe Madeleine to me. What sort of a child she is and you know how you see her.”
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.”

He refers to as a "iris defect".

First, can we get over the "she never had a coloboma" thing. M had a minor blemish in her eye. It is obvious in the photos that could show it. The photos that don't show it tend to be side on, fuzzy , have a lot of reflection from the eye surface etc.

Second, M's eye blemish may have been a mild coloboma (just google if you want to see more severe ones) or it may have been a small area of brown pigmentation in an otherwise blue/green iris.

Perhaps the most interesting thing about M's eyes is that K said that when she was a baby she had brown eyes. If this is true the eyes must have changed colour when she was young. As I understand it this is unusual and usually a genetic condition. Most eye colour change is from blue to brown (various shades) during the first 1-2 years of life. Eye change from brown to blue is odd, but if one patch of M's eye didn't change perhaps that was the cause of the "coloboma". It is also possible that the brown patch was getting progressively smaller and may have disappeared altogether.

Of course this leaves open the possibility that, if M is still alive, the blemish has long since disappeared.

by **tigger** 10.10.12 11:09

From the book: ' Big, big eyes and a lovely, compact little body. Unquote. Not: 'big brown eyes'.

A coloboma does not disappear over time any more than an iris disappears, it is part of the iris. Wikepedia is quite informative about this.

Please check and quote sources.

None of the four paragraphs posted above have quotes and seem to be 'plums' picked at random.

by Guest 10.10.12 13:06

I sometimes have the nagging feeling [feeling ...] that when sources dry up we'll see a Madeleine, who looks pretty much like the recent aged photofit and has no coloboma but just a fleck in her right eye ...

by Da Troof 10.10.12 13:18

tigger wrote:From the book: ' Big, big eyes and a lovely, compact little body. Unquote. Not: 'big brown eyes'.

A coloboma does not disappear over time any more than an iris disappears, it is part of the iris. Wikepedia is quite informative about this.

Please check and quote sources.

None of the four paragraphs posted above have quotes and seem to be 'plums' picked at random.

Didn't suggest that a coloboma could disappear thats why I called it a "coloboma". If it isn't a coloboma but an area of brown coloration in the iris then it can disappear either by the eye becoming all blue or all brown. Changes in eye colour are common in the first 1-2 years of life. In north europeans the change is most commonly from grey/blue to more brown. Many refs out there, wikipedia, but just google if you want more.

Not sure where I read about K saying M had brown eyes when born......will have to check that one out........unless someone else can help.

by Guest 10.10.12 13:21

I think the last bit about the brown eyes was simply confusion over the "big big eyes" quote in the book.

by Da Troof 10.10.12 13:27

Thanks Jean, so much is "reported" that sometimes the facts get lost. My bad sad

by **tigger** 10.10.12 13:41

Da Troof wrote:
tigger wrote:From the book: ' Big, big eyes and a lovely, compact little body. Unquote. Not: 'big brown eyes'.

A coloboma does not disappear over time any more than an ~~iris~~ pupil disappears, it is part of the ~~iris.~~ pupil. Wikepedia is quite informative about this.

Please check and quote sources.

None of the four paragraphs posted above have quotes and seem to be 'plums' picked at random.

Didn't suggest that a coloboma could disappear thats why I called it a "coloboma". If it isn't a coloboma but an area of brown coloration in the iris then it can disappear either by the eye becoming all blue or all brown. Changes in eye colour are common in the first 1-2 years of life. In north europeans the change is most commonly from grey/blue to more brown. Many refs out there, wikipedia, but just google if you want more.

Not sure where I read about K saying M had brown eyes when born......will have to check that one out........unless someone else can help.

I've corrected my post, I meant pupil, not iris. A coloboma doesn't change because it is part of the pupil, not the iris. So it doesn't matter whether the iris changes colour - makes no difference to the shape, size or colour of the coloboma.

by cath2756 10.10.12 15:48

Da Troof wrote:
tigger wrote:From the book: ' Big, big eyes and a lovely, compact little body. Unquote. Not: 'big brown eyes'.

A coloboma does not disappear over time any more than an iris disappears, it is part of the iris. Wikepedia is quite informative about this.

Please check and quote sources.

None of the four paragraphs posted above have quotes and seem to be 'plums' picked at random.

Didn't suggest that a coloboma could disappear thats why I called it a "coloboma". If it isn't a coloboma but an area of brown coloration in the iris then it can disappear either by the eye becoming all blue or all brown. Changes in eye colour are common in the first 1-2 years of life. In north europeans the change is most commonly from grey/blue to more brown. Many refs out there, wikipedia, but just google if you want more.

Not sure where I read about K saying M had brown eyes when born......will have to check that one out........unless someone else can help.

Da Troof, I have an amber brown fleck in my, otherwise, blue eyes. I realise everyone is different but mine hasn't changed at all over the years. Mine is in the 11 o'clock position in my left eye and it may be because of the position but very few people have even noticed it. It dumbfounds me that the parents of a missing child can have everyone searching for a girl with an extremely distinctive feature and then tell us it was just a fleck and they never made much of it

by Da Troof 10.10.12 16:17

I'm not saying it will now be invisible just that that is a possibility.

The point I was trying to make is that there is no doubt that M had some sort of feature in her eye. Whether it was a coloboma or something else is not important. It was there and all the debate about ...e.g. "I can't see it in this picture or that picture" is just a distraction. If she is still alive she may still have it she may not. If she is ever found alive her right eye will not be important in her identification. That will have to be done by DNA analysis.

I agree that the McC's change of emphasis over her eye is far more interesting than the did she have a coloboma or not debate.

by jd 10.10.12 16:39

Da Troof wrote:I'm not saying it will now be invisible just that that is a possibility.

The point I was trying to make is that there is no doubt that M had some sort of feature in her eye. Whether it was a coloboma or something else is not important. It was there and all the debate about ...e.g. "I can't see it in this picture or that picture" is just a distraction. If she is still alive she may still have it she may not. If she is ever found alive her right eye will not be important in her identification. That will have to be done by DNA analysis.

I agree that the McC's change of emphasis over her eye is far more interesting than the did she have a coloboma or not debate.

-------

Too much wild speculation here for my liking. I think the child

could or could not have had some sort of feature in her eye

though it is impossible to say

from the photos as some of them have it and some don't

If she is ever found alive her right eye will not be important in her identification.

The birthmark behind her left knee will be

by **tigger** 10.10.12 17:33

[quote="Da Troof"]I'm not saying it will now be invisible just that that is a possibility.

The point I was trying to make is that there is no doubt that M had some sort of feature in her eye. Whether it was a coloboma or something else is not important. It was there and all the debate about ...e.g. "I can't see it in this picture or that picture" is just a distraction. If she is still alive she may still have it she may not. If she is ever found alive her right eye will not be important in her identification. That will have to be done by DNA analysis. [...] unquote

This is quite upbeat!
So you are considering the likelyhood of her being alive? Despite very good evidence to the contrary?
Maddie is supplied complete with coloboma in the age advanced pictures for your information. Pictures created by SY and the McCanns.

So to recap: there is no doubt that she had some sort of feature in her eye. But what it was is not important.
All the debate about it is a distraction - from what? Knitting?
If she is still alive it may still be there or it may not ( Cathy has just posted on the unlikely fact that these features disappear and the medical world seems to agree).
If she is found her right eye will not be important in her identification. - so if it is there it will still not be important? If it looks just like the poster photo, it will mean absolutely nothing? E.g. if seen on a photograph of a girl of the right age, just a one in ten thousand chance a girl that age and looks would have the same mark as the girl they're looking for? In fact the odds are twice as high as boys of that age would be ruled out.

So say someone takes a snapshot of a girl they think might be Maddie. Say in a supermarket in Spain. The shot shows her face and a coloboma just like the poster. This is not going to get anyone to look for her, find her and check her DNA? Even though only one girl (of that age) in twenty thousand has this feature?
The whole thing about the coloboma is that it was supposed to help find her.

by Miraflores 10.10.12 17:39

I think the distraction come in when people start analysing photos that they see on the internet. Tricks of the light can cast reflections or make people look quite different. I personally don't doubt that Madeleine had something wrong with her eye, whether it was a fleck that didn't affect her vision or a coloboma which they did/did not make anything of, is the irrelevance. But yes, if I saw a girl of 8 or 9 with some sort of mark light that, I might wonder.

by sami 10.10.12 17:56

Why was the birth mark on her leg not given the same priority as the eye defect ? Surely two identifying features is better than one.

by Miraflores 10.10.12 18:07

Sami - I am sure it was because the first gave them the opportunity to show an appealing little toddler. A photo of a part of a leg wouldn't have the same impact, but yes, would help someone identify her. So this does beg a few questions.

by jd 10.10.12 19:39

sami wrote:Why was the birth mark on her leg not given the same priority as the eye defect ? Surely two identifying features is better than one.

Thats the burning question Sami. To me, it shows they didn't want Maddie to be found by not mentioning it in public...just the same with the posters and other pictures that were of a younger Maddie (if some of them are indeed of her or a boy) and not the current looking one the public were looking for

by jd 10.10.12 19:54

The India sighting is a good example. Why were they waiting to see photos of the 'girl that was taken from the crowd' to see if it was Maddie, when they would know immediately if it was her or not by the mark behind her left knee. If its not there then it is not her...simple really

by sami 10.10.12 20:16

Miraflores wrote:Sami - I am sure it was because the first gave them the opportunity to show an appealing little toddler. A photo of a part of a leg wouldn't have the same impact, but yes, would help someone identify her. So this does beg a few questions.

Hi Miraflores - I did not mean to issue a photograph of her leg, but just to highlight the fact that the birth mark existed. If you were to see a toddler from behind for example and became suspicious for whatever reason, rather than immediately having to run to face her, gaze up close into her face to look at her eye and more than likely scare her half to death, at least you could discount a possible "sighting" if she were wearing a skirt or shorts and you could see her leg.

I have never seen the mark on her leg mentioned, other than in the very first police report. It was never again mentioned as far as I am aware. Every little helps, as they say.

by Miraflores 10.10.12 20:18

Hi Sami,

Yes, I agree, so it does make you question whether they really wanted her to be found.....

by sami 10.10.12 20:47

Miraflores wrote:Hi Sami,

Yes, I agree, so it does make you question whether they really wanted her to be found.....

Quite. The "missing poster" they issued at first had the words "missing, 3 years from last night, contact Luz Ocean Club" and a photo of younger Madeleine in a pink pj type top with white spots.

What good is a poster without the childs name ? What do you say to a child you come across, who you think may be Madeleine - at least if you could ask is her name Madeleine it would be helpful. No, instead you have to ask are you three and are you missing since last night ??

It states she was three years old. Technically true, but she was just days away from being 4 years old. There is a very big difference in a child three years of age and four years of age. A four year old will be well able to speak up for herself, at just three years old perhaps not. The image of a three year old to some people is a very young child, a toddler. A four year old child is of school going age.

Contact the Ocean Club. No phone number for the OC or indeed themselves. So walking down the street, you see a child you think might be Madeleine. What do you do in this modern day of mobile phones ? Nothing, you turn around, perhaps have to walk in the opposite direction, arrive at the Ocean Club and tell them you may have seen the missing child two miles down the road.

Then you issue further photographs of a younger child, create an international marketing campaign with her eye defect, forget to mention another distinguishing feature on her leg, and then to cap it all off decide years later they never made much of the eye at all.

They themselves did not search that night as we know, but those who were searching were given precious little information to assist them in that search.

You would make a better effort in looking for a lost puppy, imo.

by Miraflores 10.10.12 21:08

You would make a better effort in looking for a lost puppy, imo.

I have certainly made more effort looking for lost cats in my time. However, losing a cat didn't make me 'non functioning' as Kate was, but despite that 'working very hard'.

by Guest 10.10.12 21:39

jd wrote:The India sighting is a good example. Why were they waiting to see photos of the 'girl that was taken from the crowd' to see if it was Maddie, when they would know immediately if it was her or not by the mark behind her left knee. If its not there then it is not her...simple really

***
Inasmuch as I understood this India sighting never happened ...

by Guest 10.10.12 21:41

According to the police chief in Leh,yes. I really would love to see this photo of the invisible girl! I have my x-ray specs ready and waiting.

by Guest 10.10.12 22:41

Jean wrote:According to the police chief in Leh,yes. I really would love to see this photo of the invisible girl! I have my x-ray specs ready and waiting.

***
Specs OK, but don't hold your breath ... ;-)

Latest topics