Re: Who is this girl?

by ufercoffy 13.08.11 13:31

jd wrote:Im confused with this topic. The child on the left is clearly not Maddie and someone has said that little girl on the left is Madeline O'Brien, a child actress, she played Amanda MCready in Gone Baby Gone.

Was the picture on the left published by the Mccanns at some point as a pic of Maddie?

No.

I found the pic when I googled Madeleine McCann. I actually started the thread because I wondered if she was the 'substitute' Madeleine that Kikoratton is often referring to. I thought she may have been the daughter of a tapas7 as she is Madeleine O'Brien.

But she is a child actress so my question has been answered.

by LG78 31.08.11 20:21

Daisy wrote:
Molly wrote:
Daisy wrote:I know exactly what you mean tigger. 'Madeleine' has many different looks. I don't believe the photos are all of the same girl either. And yes, 'Madeleine' has been clearly sexualised in some of the pics; the lollipop one doesn't appear like any three year old that I've ever known.

I've taken hundreds of photos of my children/grandchildren, more so the grandchildren. I've captured their whole childhoods thus far, and of course they change, but I can still recognise them, I can still see the same child, not so with the Madeleine pics.

I agree with you, Daisy. Of them all that's the one that deeply disturbs me.

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

Exactly Molly, anybody tuned into symbolism will see how very wrong this picture is. It's coming to something when the most subtle part is the eye liner & lipstick.

And why would she have a lollipop and giant cornetto at the same time?

Are u sure it is a lollipop and not the spoon she eats the icecream with?

by Smokeandmirrors 31.08.11 20:59

Can anyone get a side by side of the child actress Madeleine and Madeleine pushing her her to one side in Everton shirt? The hand positions look identical but could be just because they are doing the same hair thing. It would be good to see them together.

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

by Guest 31.08.11 21:12

This one?

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

by **tigger** 31.08.11 22:22

LG78 wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Are u sure it is a lollipop and not the spoon she eats the icecream with?[/quote]

And why would she be eating a cornetto with a spoon? I've never seen that done. Another photoshopped item, that arm is a lot older than the child. It's Maddie's face on top of whatever body.

by Guest 31.08.11 22:30

I'm a lot more worried about why the McCanns chose to issue such an inappropriate photo with its suggestive overtones than whether or not the ice cream was being eaten with a spoon. Then there's the fact that almost certainly the head and the body are not of the same person so once again all I can ask is why was it issued at all?

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

by Guest 31.08.11 22:42

Are we sure it was a McCann release? I thought so at first but I can't find any proof that it was. The picture is from the 2010 video release but in that there is no ice-cream.

by Smokeandmirrors 31.08.11 22:50

Thanks for putting those pics on Molly and Admin. Very similar demeanour of the fingers between both girls, for a moment when I saw the actress Madeleine I did a double take of the hand and thought it was almost the same!

by LG78 31.08.11 23:10

Where im from you always get a little spoon to icecreams like this. I dont think the arm are photshopped in. Looks perfectly normal to me? I also seen this picture without the icecream, so its more likely someone else photoshopped it to make more fuzz around the mccanns. I think you see what you see depending what your looking for. The quality of the picture, and the lighting in it is very poor and it looks old ... I also think it is very important to stay to facts that can be proven in this case. its so fast that someone claims a thing and then everyone believes it. Seen that a lot in here, then the facts are straighten up after pages discussing it. Like the claim that she wrote in her boook : Big brown eyes, when it acually said Big big eyes. ( wich anyway is also a strange way to describe a babys eyes, it do not sound right reading it) anyway it was a big differense in saying she wrote brown eyes when Maddies are blue, and then it turned out to be wrong ...
The quality of the picture, lighting in it is very poor and it looks old ..

by Guest 31.08.11 23:13

For anyone who missed this gem, here's a link:

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

The photo without the ice cream appears at around 1.04. To me it's the same photo, it's just that it's shortened to show only her face.

P.S. It appears on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which states that the material was on the original Find Madeleine site.

by littlepixie 31.08.11 23:30

It is the same photo just cropped.

by **tigger** 01.09.11 8:36

Marian wrote:For anyone who missed this gem, here's a link:

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

The photo without the ice cream appears at around 1.04. To me it's the same photo, it's just that it's shortened to show only her face.

P.S. It appears on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which states that the material was on the original Find Madeleine site.

I've blown it up quite a lot and it does look like a lolly to me, not a spoon. But that isn't surprising if the arm and ice cream, which are at an odd angle, are added later. The arm has to be of an older girl, no toddler carries 'loose' fat on the upper arms. The arm flattened against the body shows loose fat, the hand is a little odd too, the angle of the body relative to the left arm also makes little sense. It's Maddie's face all right. Blowing the photo up also shows the unnatural definition of the eyelashes I've seen in many other photographs.
There is a contemporary photo of Madeleine sitting on her cousin's lap, where her bare arm is clearly visible.
I think her left half is an overlay using another arm with the ice cream. I also shudder to think why make the photographs even more suggestive?

by LG78 01.09.11 8:52

This phot is also found at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and are suppost to be Madeleine

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

The futures of her face do not look like Madeleine at all ?

And this one is on the same page aswell? The boy look wrong, the girl do not look like Maddeleiene?

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

by Guest 01.09.11 9:04

Tigger: I agree with all your comments. I think that the lolly is of the small round sweet variety, not an iced lolly. To me it's a mystery why the McCanns published what can only be described as provocative images and why so many people think they are normal family photos.

LG78: It's hard to tell if the child dressed up as I'm not quite sure what (!) is Madeleine but as I'm sure you know there are considerable doubts as to whether all the photos issued are of the same child.

by LG78 01.09.11 9:08

Jean wrote:

LG78: It's hard to tell if the child dressed up as I'm not quite sure what (!) is Madeleine but as I'm sure you know there are considerable doubts as to whether all the photos issued are of the same child.

Yeah I am aware of those theroys. And I agree it can be hard to see when dressed up. But if you only look at the facial futures, they do not seem alike to other Maddie photos of her smiling..

by Daisy 01.09.11 17:43

LG78 wrote:Where im from you always get a little spoon to icecreams like this.

If you were to buy a small tub of ice cream here you would get a little
spoon, but not with a cornetto or cone, (that's the point of the cone) that's clearly a cornetto, it
still has the wrapper on. Let's not get bogged down with this little detail
though. Given the circumstances and Kate's fears about paedophiles (not to mention the Gasper statement) that photograph is highly inappropriate.

If it isn't an officially released photo, or, if someone has photoshoppped it to make it look even more suggestive, then the McCanns condone it anyway. I've seen people on the official McCann Facebook page use that photo as their profile pic. I haven't heard the McCanns voicing any concerns? Then again why would they? Of all the photographs they must have of Madeleine, they chose to release the blue eye shadow and other make-up pics. Go figure because I can't.

by LG78 01.09.11 17:57

Daisy wrote:
LG78 wrote:Where im from you always get a little spoon to icecreams like this.

If you were to buy a small tub of ice cream here you would get a little
spoon, but not with a cornetto or cone, (that's the point of the cone) that's clearly a cornetto, it
still has the wrapper on. Let's not get bogged down with this little detail
though. Given the circumstances and Kate's fears about paedophiles (not to mention the Gasper statement) that photograph is highly inappropriate.

If it isn't an officially released photo, or, if someone has photoshoppped it to make it look even more suggestive, then the McCanns condone it anyway. I've seen people on the official McCann Facebook page use that photo as their profile pic. I haven't heard the McCanns voicing any concerns? Then again why would they? Of all the photographs they must have of Madeleine, they chose to release the blue eye shadow and other make-up pics. Go figure because I can't.

Thats true, the spoon is irrelevant, and you are right we dont get a spoon with a cornetto( i saw the paper wraped around it later on)
And yes why have lollipop and icecream at ones..