Did Madeleine have coloboma?

Gillyspot wrote:

HFS wrote:

The Irwins, who were at the Tapas bar that night next to the Mccanns, came from the States

I remember that name from long time ago. They were mentioned in some of the interviews by the PJ, were they?
I've never been able to find a statement of those people. They were there when it's happened, right?

They were apparently eating at the Tapas but Rachel & Matthew Oldfield & Jane Tanner deny ever meeting them or dining with them. As you say there is no statement from the Irwins in files.

Thank you for confirming that.

There are 2 topics regarding the Irwins

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] cannot believe that the mccanns now say they did not emphasize the mark in madeleine's eye at time of her 'abduction '..!!! all the posters at the time more or less revolved around this- ALL OF THEM- it was the thing we were told to look for !!! now they say it was a tiny mark which was not even noticeable & they didnt even mention it..???? were they NOT behind those posters then --- who was ??????

Yes, this is maybe the biggest of the numerous turnarounds they've made in the past 5 years. They must have forgotten to look at their own pictures from time to time again ...

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

Yet in spite of this massive backtrack over such a crucial identifying factor, nobody in the mainstream media has thought that it was worth mentioning.

Jean wrote:Yet in spite of this massive backtrack over such a crucial identifying factor, nobody in the mainstream media has thought that it was worth mentioning.

Or maybe the press are saving all these gems for the day when they can really go to town and let rip without fear of legal repercussions. I believe that day will come.......

I've always had the feeling that indeed there may come a day, when in numerous editorial offices overflowing drawers are opened and ready-made & detailed articles hit the papers within seconds ...

Well, one can dream ... yes?

It proves that the media will not publish anything that may be detrimental to the evolving devolving Mccann fairy tale. If the media were taken to court over said colomboma the maccs would surely lose as the evidence thereof is/was literally plastered all over the place. Sigh!

The McCanns believe Madeleine's distinctive right eye - where
her pupil merges into the blue-green iris - will be vital in
getting her back.

It can be clearly seen on an appeal poster and Mrs McCann said:
"We want to make the most of it, because we know her hair could
potentially be cut or dyed."


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

bristow wrote:The McCanns believe Madeleine's distinctive right eye - where
her pupil merges into the blue-green iris - will be vital in
getting her back.

It can be clearly seen on an appeal poster and Mrs McCann said:
"We want to make the most of it, because we know her hair could
potentially be cut or dyed."


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

I'm a dunce at I.T. matters.
On a thread recently we discussed the babe in Kate's arms and what was either the pink cuddlecat or a pink towel. I seem to remember that Maddie's eye was visible with just a tiny little fleck (as Kate later declared in an interview). A coloboma does not change.
If any dab-hand can re-find that thread and post the photo next to the photo in the above article I think it will be very damning evidence of 'deliberately misleading the investigation.'

ETA I have found the photos on page 109 of the Photographs and Memories thread.

It's also on this link.

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

The coloboma is showing in that photo.

Jean wrote:It's also on this link.

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

The coloboma is showing in that photo.

It's trickier to get it in when the face isn't upright. In other photos where she's lying down (the skirting board one) it's at about 6 o'clock, this one here about 6.30 I'd say. Seven is the most common one.

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've lost track a bit here, JD, too early in the day! Are you talking about the baby photo to which I posted a link? It must have been taken in 2003, not 2005, and while we can't state for sure if the baby is Madeleine, it's more believable than some other photos.

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.

Too much wild speculation here for my liking. I think the child looks like M, though it is impossible to say whether the child is a boy or a girl.
K looks younger than in 2007, but it could well have been taken when she was pregnant with the twins and "blooming".

It is wild speculation of this sort that allows the McC's to portray forums like this as ridiculous.

from Wikipedia:
The incidence of coloboma is estimated at around 0.5 to 0.7 per 10,000 births, making it a relatively rare condition.[3]
Perhaps the most famous people with coloboma are John Ritter, Henry Cavill, Danielle Minton, New York Times columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin, tennis player Arnaud Clément, alternative rock singer songwriter Lachi and Madeleine McCann. McCann, a British girl, disappeared from the vacation resort rented by her parents in May 2007 just before her fourth birthday. Posters and online campaigns promoting the search for Madeleine use the word "Look" with the first "O" in the word being drawn in the shape of a coloboma radius extending from the pupil at the 7 o'clock position.
unquote.

They never made much of it, according to Healy in April 2011.. Madeleine is unique in having apparently a coloboma that moves or on occasion isn't present at all, as can be seen in film clips and photographs.

If there was no coloboma, publishing photographs with that feature more or less ensured that no such child would be found for the simple reason that no such child ever existed.

When there was a reaction last year about the Indian sighting of a supposed Maddie, a photograph allegedly was sent, but the coloboma wasn't mentioned at all. Surely with any possible sighting all that needs to be done is to see if the right eye has this feature. Quick and easy elimination of non-Maddies.
Same with the Spanish sighting, the German one etc.
But no, not a peep out of TM. Imo it's fake.Coloboma is off the menu.

Coloboma is off the menu.

I'm not sure about that tigger. I think it's possible that Madeleine did have a coloboma simply because she was a product of IVF and this process is known to produce a greater degree of birth defects. Indeed, the bewk, from what I recall, said that the eggs were beginning to deteriorate before Kate had them implanted.

I don't think we can rely on photos, to say what was there or not. E.g. sometimes the lighting used distorts the photo.


What I would like to know, is why they changed their story from the coloboma being the main focus of the publicity to them declaring that they had never made much of it.

Miraflores wrote:[...]

What I would like to know, is why they changed their story from the coloboma being the main focus of the publicity to them declaring that they had never made much of it.

***
One of the many questions, Miraflores, one of the many ...

If one would compare their statements "then" and "now" or "recently" there wouldn't be anything coherent between them.

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

Regardez dans mes yeux in English (with an old picture) means "look into my Eyes"

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.]

Da Troof wrote:Too much wild speculation here for my liking. I think the child looks like M, though it is impossible to say whether the child is a boy or a girl.
K looks younger than in 2007, but it could well have been taken when she was pregnant with the twins and "blooming".

It is wild speculation of this sort that allows the McC's to portray forums like this as ridiculous.

I agree with you totally. Too many groundless speculations of this kind and misrepresentations of data can only deflect our debate from searching for the truth, and throw a poor light on the really valuable work done on this forum.

They never made much of it, according to Healy in April 2011. Madeleine is unique in having apparently a coloboma that moves or on occasion isn't present at all, as can be seen in film clips and photographs.

Since there was no coloboma, publishing photographs with that feature more or less ensured that no such child would be found for the simple reason that no such child ever existed.

When there was a reaction last year about the Indian sighting of a supposed Maddie, a photograph allegedly was sent, but the coloboma wasn't mentioned at all. Surely with any possible sighting all that needs to be done is to see if the right eye has this feature. Quick and easy elimination of non-Maddies.
Same with the Spanish sighting, the German one etc.
But no, not a peep out of TM. Imo it's fake.Coloboma is off the menu.
[/quote]

It really isn't logical to concede that one or two photographs are 'doctored' in some way but dismiss the possibility that others are too. Photographs (as recently seen in Saville's 'wedding' photograph) are constantly mislabelled by the press. In Maddie's case, photographs were released by the family members without providing a date or place or occasion at which they were taken. (E.g. the birthday cake photo was listed in the DM as her birthday.)

The McCanns have used this 'feature' and reported such a feature to the PJ as well. Who advised against using it in the publicity campaign because it would almost certainly mean her death sentence if she had been kidnapped.
All the same the poster was ready and used within hours of her disappearance. A complete publicity campaign was built around the coloboma. Google was approached to use one of the two O's with the coloboma.
I would call that making quite a thing of it. In the Piers Morgan interview we are told (transcript and video available) that they never made much of it and it was just a fleck you could hardly see, only if you were very close.

If one then checks the photographs and finds that the coloboma in her eye is at times a different shape and different position in the eye (which is impossible), if one considers that photoshopping has been proved to the satisfaction of experts (I'm not talking about myself but people who do this for a job) I find it a perfectly logical conclusion that it was a publicity stunt and nothing more.
Corroborative evidence imo is that it was never used to 'identify' any child said to be Maddie.

Imo it was a masterstroke in the publicity campaign. It also served the useful purpose early on in that there would be no need to travel far and wide to identify any child said to be Maddie. With the world-wide publicity this would surely have happened if there had not been such a distinguishing feature.
A child which could never be found was created by promoting an image which never existed in real life.

Re the photograph with the baby: you only have to look at the early photographs of Maddie at 6 months or so (near a tulip bed in the garden) to see that she cannot be the child Kate is holding.

tigger wrote:They never made much of it, according to Healy in April 2011. Madeleine is unique in having apparently a coloboma that moves or on occasion isn't present at all, as can be seen in film clips and photographs.

Since there was no coloboma, publishing photographs with that feature more or less ensured that no such child would be found for the simple reason that no such child ever existed.

When there was a reaction last year about the Indian sighting of a supposed Maddie, a photograph allegedly was sent, but the coloboma wasn't mentioned at all. Surely with any possible sighting all that needs to be done is to see if the right eye has this feature. Quick and easy elimination of non-Maddies.
Same with the Spanish sighting, the German one etc.
But no, not a peep out of TM. Imo it's fake.Coloboma is off the menu.

It really isn't logical to concede that one or two photographs are 'doctored' in some way but dismiss the possibility that others are too. Photographs (as recently seen in Saville's 'wedding' photograph) are constantly mislabelled by the press. In Maddie's case, photographs were released by the family members without providing a date or place or occasion at which they were taken. (E.g. the birthday cake photo was listed in the DM as her birthday.)

The McCanns have used this 'feature' and reported such a feature to the PJ as well. Who advised against using it in the publicity campaign because it would almost certainly mean her death sentence if she had been kidnapped.
All the same the poster was ready and used within hours of her disappearance. A complete publicity campaign was built around the coloboma. Google was approached to use one of the two O's with the coloboma.
I would call that making quite a thing of it. In the Piers Morgan interview we are told (transcript and video available) that they never made much of it and it was just a fleck you could hardly see, only if you were very close.

If one then checks the photographs and finds that the coloboma in her eye is at times a different shape and different position in the eye (which is impossible), if one considers that photoshopping has been proved to the satisfaction of experts (I'm not talking about myself but people who do this for a job) I find it a perfectly logical conclusion that it was a publicity stunt and nothing more.
Corroborative evidence imo is that it was never used to 'identify' any child said to be Maddie.

Imo it was a masterstroke in the publicity campaign. It also served the useful purpose early on in that there would be no need to travel far and wide to identify any child said to be Maddie. With the world-wide publicity this would surely have happened if there had not been such a distinguishing feature.
A child which could never be found was created by promoting an image which never existed in real life.

Re the photograph with the baby: you only have to look at the early photographs of Maddie at 6 months or so (near a tulip bed in the garden) to see that she cannot be the child Kate is holding.

Wrt coloboma there is an earlier thread started by Get 'em Gonçalo which contains more researched info and less random speculation.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I myself said this was used as a marketing ploy and I am not disagreeing with you. But I was referring to some posters mislabeling or misdating photos without thorough crosschecking and without caveat, then trying to draw unsubstantiable conclusions from inappropriate premises. Also I get the impression that some are trying to conjure up evidence to fit the theory they favour rather than building a hypothesis based on evidence, which you must surely agree is not the right way to advance research on this or any subject. Must run.

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.]

It is really odd that the coloboma here is definitely at 6 o'clock compared with the norm which is at 7 o'clock. Suggesting therefore some amount of photoshopping/ manipulation, especially when the parents now say they never really made much of the coloboma.
I have always wondered whose fingers those are holding the child's hair. They seem to be much smaller than the visible right hand and the angle of arm position, to have a little hand across the top of the head, seems not to be able to be that of the child in the photo.

I know this is a deviation from the coloboma angle, but what is it with the hand. Is it possibly correct, or is it more photoshopping, since this is the only photo with a coloboma at 6 o'clock.

@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.

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

The picture above on the left was probably taken in the summer of 2006 when Madeleine was three, not in 2005. The occasion could have been when the twins were christened but were possibly still too young to blow out the candles themselves and Madeleine was given the task as a treat.

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

The last of the four photos above is labelled as 'Madeleine 11 months' on Pamalam site and I have no means of verifying this. However, if you look at them from left to right you see a clear age progression and the picture in question, entitled 'Comfort - Madeleine with Kate and Cuddle Cat', looks to me to fit in somewhere during this time span.

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)

Apologies to anyone else who feels it is 'wild' speculation and bringing this forum down searching for the truth in a direction they do not like. Remember it was not me who released these pictures into the public domain, and if they look so wrong and inconsistent then I have a right to question them. I suggest you don;t enter the topic if this disturbs you so much. I can think of many other things with real trolls on this forum that bring it down....not analysing clear inconsistent pictures

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.

@tigger I am not disagreeing with you on the coloboma issue as I stated earlier. It seems likely that Medeleine did have a minor iris defect but the MCs saw fit to use it for their 'marketing campaign'. As Get'em suggests, this could have been one of the reasons, if not the reason, they refused to hand over her medical record to the PJ at the time.

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. Wild speculations have a habit of distract and derail our debates.