Re: Why have the McCanns lied about Maddie's coloboma for 4 years?

by Guest 28.09.11 22:44

As far as I'm aware, the reversal over the coloboma issue came with the Piers Morgan intervew in May. Here's a transcript courtesy of Little Morsals.

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

I don't suppose I'm the only person who cannot abide to hear the McCanns' voices any more, hence my selecting a transcribed version.

by rainbow-fairy 28.09.11 23:04

Marian wrote:As far as I'm aware, the reversal over the coloboma issue came with the Piers Morgan interview in May. Here's a transcript courtesy of Little Morsals.

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

I don't suppose I'm the only person who cannot abide to hear the McCanns' voices any more, hence my selecting a transcribed version.

Hmmmmm - May? When the review was announced! So my theory DOES stand up so far then? You know, Marian, I don't believe for one minute K n G thought they'd get the review so it was a nasty shock, yet they have to 'appear' pleased, don't they?
Sr Amaral predicted earlier in the year that a review would be a 'shot in the foot' and much would be revealed that would displease them. Let's hope he's proven right!

Be assured, Marian, I can't bear to hear their self-pitying, whining, grating tones either - never have been able to. And as for Aunty Phil - aargh!

by **PeterMac** 29.09.11 9:20

rainbow-fairy wrote: You know, Marian, I don't believe for one minute K n G thought they'd get the review so it was a nasty shock, yet they have to 'appear' pleased, don't they? Sr Amaral predicted earlier in the year that a review would be a 'shot in the foot' and much would be revealed that would displease them. Let's hope he's proven right!

I think you are correct on that. Without the review they could go on collecting money for the "Fund", and their continued complaints that no one was doing anything would assist. Once Cameron had announced the Review they were stuffed.

There are many precedents for people complaining about things, but actually not wanting the outcome.

• For 2000 Jews prayed, "Next year in Jerusalem," when they were given Jerusalem they stayed on in New York.
• The Chinese complained about Hong Kong. When they were given it back they discovered it started to undermine their Communist regime, and will probably act like a cancer and spread Capitalism and Democracy throughout the region.
• The Spanish complain about Gibraltar - but not very much !
• Women complained about not having equality, and now the conditions for their pensions have been brought into line with men's, they don't like it.

And so on. I have a feeling that Cameron may have done some good.

by jmac 29.09.11 10:00

One of the things that made me suspicious about the McCanns was the fact that they were prepared to announce Madeleine`s eye defect to the world. Any normal parent would know instinctively that such a move would put Madeleine at risk - she could be too easily identified, and any abductor would know this. That G McCann put a marketing ploy before protecting Madeleine, to me, suggests there was something seriously lacking in him as a parent.

Now we learn that in photographs a little fleck in the eye was exaggerated! This would have to have been done a short time after Madeleine`s disappearance, I think. How is it possible for distraught parents to behave like that?

There are two mysteries that intrigue me about this case. One is the strange behaviour of the parents. The other is that the UK media do not seem to find the strange behaviour of the parents at all worrying. That the McCanns modify their account of things time and time again is never commented on either. Whether their changed account of the coloboma has anything to do with the review I am not sure. But the inconsistencies are mounting and will never go away.

by Guest 29.09.11 10:14

PeterMac wrote:I have a feeling that Cameron may have done some good.

I have a feeling he is playing a blinder and all good things come to those who wait and who deserve them.
Here's to you DC airkiss

and I don't mean the F1 one either.

by Guest 29.09.11 10:18

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

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

by Gillyspot 29.09.11 10:46

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

Why did they spend their time before the Portuguese GNR arrived deleted most of their mobile telephone calls. I probably wouldn't have even rememebered where my phone was let alone deleted calls as would have been off my head with worry.

Why were they busy getting all their Team McCann back in the UK criticising the Portuguese Police right from the 4th May simply because the PJ thought she may have wandered off at that time and the McCanns' wanted them to focus on only the "abduction" thesis and NO other.

Why did they get so many friends and family (including David Payne and Kates Dad) to say that the shutters were forced when there was no evidence of this happening? Interesting that these statements are mostly still available in the press after so much has been "whooshed"

by **tigger** 29.09.11 11:31

jmac wrote: snip

Now we learn that in photographs a little fleck in the eye was exaggerated! This would have to have been done a short time after Madeleine`s disappearance, I think. How is it possible for distraught parents to behave like that?

snip.

In the GNR report or the PJ report (McCannfiles) one of the officers noted that there was a pile (30 to 40) of A4 quality photographs ready as well as a pile of posters which was run off on the MW printer that night. However, a mere four hours or so after her disappearance the iconic photograph, fully photoshopped, and complete with coloboma, was ready to go. The photo dates from Christmas 2005!
Unfortunately for TM, the PJ found out that there was no printer at MW which could print photo quality. The paper wasn't available anywhere in PdL. Subsequently, a girl who worked there, said they'd used her portable printer which took USB keys.
We still have a problem, it's pretty curious to go on holiday with a USB key (no laptops apparently) containing this photo of Maddie with the eye defect. That means the 'adjustment' was done in the UK.
The printer was never found, since the girls' boyfriend took it with him to Switserland and then it was lost.....
ROB is supposed to have done all this printing and his rogatory interview shows that his recall is far from total!

by rainbow-fairy 29.09.11 11:37

PeterMac wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote: You know, Marian, I don't believe for one minute K n G thought they'd get the review so it was a nasty shock, yet they have to 'appear' pleased, don't they? Sr Amaral predicted earlier in the year that a review would be a 'shot in the foot' and much would be revealed that would displease them. Let's hope he's proven right!
I think you are correct on that. Without the review they could go on collecting money for the "Fund", and their continued complaints that no one was doing anything would assist. Once Cameron had announced the Review they were stuffed.

There are many precedents for people complaining about things, but actually not wanting the outcome.

• For 2000 Jews prayed, "Next year in Jerusalem," when they were given Jerusalem they stayed on in New York.
• The Chinese complained about Hong Kong. When they were given it back they discovered it started to undermine their Communist regime, and will probably act like a cancer and spread Capitalism and Democracy throughout the region.
• The Spanish complain about Gibraltar - but not very much !
• Women complained about not having equality, and now the conditions for their pensions have been brought into line with men's, they don't like it.

And so on. I have a feeling that Cameron may have done some good.

Oh, let's hope so, PeterMac! I've never actually voted CON before, but ANY party who would put an end to this farce would get my vote. I think K n G SEVERELY p***ed DC off with their comment about his son Ivan, and how he would 'know how they feel'. I bet he saw red!
I just hope this is the beginning of the end for Team McCann and all who sail in her!

by rainbow-fairy 29.09.11 11:59

jmac wrote:One of the things that made me suspicious about the McCanns was the fact that they were prepared to announce Madeleine`s eye defect to the world. Any normal parent would know instinctively that such a move would put Madeleine at risk - she could be too easily identified, and any abductor would know this. That G McCann put a marketing ploy before protecting Madeleine, to me, suggests there was something seriously lacking in him as a parent.

Now we learn that in photographs a little fleck in the eye was exaggerated! This would have to have been done a short time after Madeleine`s disappearance, I think. How is it possible for distraught parents to behave like that?

There are two mysteries that intrigue me about this case. One is the strange behaviour of the parents. The other is that the UK media do not seem to find the strange behaviour of the parents at all worrying. That the McCanns modify their account of things time and time again is never commented on either. Whether their changed account of the coloboma has anything to do with the review I am not sure. But the inconsistencies are mounting and will never go away.

Hello and welcome, jmac!
I think the UK media DO realise the McCanns behaviour is worrying and not normal, it's just it's been made quite clear to them via Carter-Ruck what the consequences will be of printing so-called 'unhelpful' material! Even the fragrant Antonella Lazzeri of The Sun has,'t always written good stuff on them - back in the early days she wrote 'unhelpful' stuff like all the others. Now her writings resemble those of an awestruck fan!
It will be interesting to see, IF the review backs up what we suspect, how the papers will turn this all around.....

by rainbow-fairy 29.09.11 12:10

Honestly, this complete reversal of the coloboma issue should be enough for the police to swoop on the McCanns, surely? After all, it's not a small insignificant detail that got lost in translation, was it? it was a cynical, sustained operation over the last four YEARS! Posters, campaigns, songs, t-shirts.....
The way they have 180 degree turned is incredible! It's a bit like if Richard Dawkins were to announce "Me? I've always been a Christian - I believe in God and I read the scriptures. I NEVER made a big thing about atheism or evolution! My books? Oh, they were exaggerated by the Media..."
It's utter nonsense! Arrest them already - fraud and false advertising for starters?

by Guest 29.09.11 12:39

Which is precisely why they tried to use the Bryan Adams song, with the lyrics "look into my eyes", to emphasize the coloboma. Unfortunately for them, Bryan Adams did not give them permission to use his song and good for him.

by Gillyspot 29.09.11 12:42

Stella wrote:Which is precisely why they tried to use the Bryan Adams song, with the lyrics "look into my eyes", to emphasize the coloboma. Unfortunately for them, Bryan Adams did not give them permission to use his song and good for him.

Simple Minds (one of my old hero bands) let them use "Dont you forget about me" and that's put me right off them.

by Guest 29.09.11 13:04

Presumably the McCanns had permission from Dido to use one of her songs in the gross 2010 video in which the blue eye shadow photo first appeared. Another one off the playlist for me!

by rainbow-fairy 29.09.11 13:23

Marian wrote:Presumably the McCanns had permission from Dido to use one of her songs in the gross 2010 video in which the blue eye shadow photo first appeared. Another one off the playlist for me!

Hear, hear, Marian. I love Simple Minds and Dido, but - don't think I'll ever listen to them in same way again :-(

Incidentally, the video with the 'blue eyeshadow pic' - was that a 'still' in the film, or is the image from moving video?
I ask because - well, I don't think I know how to put this- that photo to me looks like one of a child who is not alive and well, if you get my meaning? I HATE looking at it, and not just 'coz of the make up! It really does make me feel queasy. If you look, there is no expression or 'life' in that child's eyes (and no coloboma - could see either?) Guess she could just be drugged, but IMHO she looks, well, deceased? Has anyone else noticed this or am I just odd?

by Guest 29.09.11 13:36

Rainbow Fairy, here's a link to the 2010 video to remind everyone of what the McCanns thought was a suitable anniversary souvenir!

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

Yes you are not the first person to question whether the eye shadow person (I'm not even sure if it's Madeleine) is drugged or even dead.

by rainbow-fairy 29.09.11 13:51

Marian wrote:Rainbow Fairy, here's a link to the 2010 video to remind everyone of what the McCanns thought was a suitable anniversary souvenir!

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

Yes you are not the first person to question whether the eye shadow person (I'm not even sure if it's Madeleine) is drugged or even dead.

Its so hard to tell, isn't it? I've looked back through the photo's of both my boys from birth - present. Yes, they grow older, yet 'stay the same'. The alleged photo's of 'Maddie' don't ring true - just the few I've seen could be three, four maybe more, different girls. So sad and odd.
Thank you for the link, will watch later :-)

by Guest 29.09.11 14:02

Rainbow Fairy: another link to all the photos issued by the McCanns for your leisure time.

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

If all these photos are of the same child, I'll eat my hat!

by rainbow-fairy 29.09.11 14:29

Marian wrote:Rainbow Fairy: another link to all the photos issued by the McCanns for your leisure time.

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

If all these photos are of the same child, I'll eat my hat!

And I'll say I'll eat mine too! I shall load that up now. Just wish I'd got 'proper' internet or better signal, this bb is sooo slow lol
Thanks again Marian, you're an angel!

by **tigger** 29.09.11 20:35

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Marian wrote:As far as I'm aware, the reversal over the coloboma issue came with the Piers Morgan interview in May. Here's a transcript courtesy of Little Morsals.

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

I don't suppose I'm the only person who cannot abide to hear the McCanns' voices any more, hence my selecting a transcribed version.
Hmmmmm - May? When the review was announced! So my theory DOES stand up so far then? You know, Marian, I don't believe for one minute K n G thought they'd get the review so it was a nasty shock, yet they have to 'appear' pleased, don't they?
Sr Amaral predicted earlier in the year that a review would be a 'shot in the foot' and much would be revealed that would displease them. Let's hope he's proven right!

Be assured, Marian, I can't bear to hear their self-pitying, whining, grating tones either - never have been able to. And as for Aunty Phil - aargh!

The interview was aired on the 11th of May. So when did Cameron decree the investigation? Because I just looked up the Daily Telegraph of the 11th which reports that they had written to ask for the investigation. Interview may not be live, letter no earlier than the 10th?
So they recall the coloboma and petition for an investigation almost at the same time. When did Clarrie leave? We only knew in late July I think, but did he leave before? When was that blessed sighting in India?

Goodness, a lot started happening once the book was published. Did any directors leave the Fund around that time?

by Guest 30.09.11 18:26

Hi Tigger. The infamous letter to David Cameron was dated 11th May and he replied on the 12th!! Is it definite that St Clarence has actually given up his wondrous job as McCanns' spokesman? I've never seen anything definite about that. As for the Leh sighting here's a link to the original story in July.

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

by rainbow-fairy 30.09.11 20:02

Marian wrote:Hi Tigger. The infamous letter to David Cameron was dated 11th May and he replied on the 12th!! Is it definite that St Clarence has actually given up his wondrous job as McCanns' spokesman? I've never seen anything definite about that. As for the Leh sighting here's a link to the original story in July.

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

I'm not totally convinced that the letter wasn't just a publicity stunt on K n G's part. It could even be they'd got wind of a review and it was they're way of pre-empting the announcement - a bit like Gerry saying the dogs were his idea!
Either that, or the behind-the-scenes letter to DC was sent some time before it was printed in The Sun. It's good publicity really for DC whether they ever get found guilty or not!

by **tigger** 01.10.11 8:23

Marian wrote:Hi Tigger. The infamous letter to David Cameron was dated 11th May and he replied on the 12th!! Is it definite that St Clarence has actually given up his wondrous job as McCanns' spokesman? I've never seen anything definite about that. As for the Leh sighting here's a link to the original story in July.

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

The Leh sighting was around the 23rd July. Not long before that, Clarrie stated that there were still 500 or so psychic sightings to be investigated.

On the 14th July he was on TM website, by the 29th he was whooshed. Someone phoned the TM? office and got confirmation he'd left.

But 4 directors of the Fund left soon before that? Will look up that date.

A fake sighting so soon after the book launch was perhaps a bridge too far? Basic 'follow up' sales technique.

There was a hint about Hungarian paedos in PdL earlier this year, then recently the book launch in Hungary but no transsylvanian sighting yet.
The ghastly German interviews just before that and their link to German paedos know to have been active in Portugal. I think the general public can only take so much.

I think the timeline of this year is worth a look. I agree that the letter in the Sun and DC's decision are rather too close together, so was it like the famous flea circus? The trick there is to call the command as you see the flea is about to jump, thus giving the impression that the flea is reacting to your cue.
Since they seem to have had quite a lot of help from the media, they would have been warned.
Didn't Kate give in a petition a little earlier? I remember seeing a photograph of her doing that. On that basis DC would have taken a decision (possibly fed up with their hogging the headlines) which could have leaked. Hence the open letter and a far too quick response from DC, surely it would have involved some consultation, the amount that could be spent, etc.
No, I think we've been getting the story back to front, it doesn't harm DC because he is now a quick acting PM and he's giving them a reason to shut up.

by Cristobell 28.11.11 15:36

tigger wrote:
jmac wrote: snip

Now we learn that in photographs a little fleck in the eye was exaggerated! This would have to have been done a short time after Madeleine`s disappearance, I think. How is it possible for distraught parents to behave like that?

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

In the GNR report or the PJ report (McCannfiles) one of the officers noted that there was a pile (30 to 40) of A4 quality photographs ready as well as a pile of posters which was run off on the MW printer that night. However, a mere four hours or so after her disappearance the iconic photograph, fully photoshopped, and complete with coloboma, was ready to go. The photo dates from Christmas 2005!
Unfortunately for TM, the PJ found out that there was no printer at MW which could print photo quality. The paper wasn't available anywhere in PdL. Subsequently, a girl who worked there, said they'd used her portable printer which took USB keys.
We still have a problem, it's pretty curious to go on holiday with a USB key (no laptops apparently) containing this photo of Maddie with the eye defect. That means the 'adjustment' was done in the UK.
The printer was never found, since the girls' boyfriend took it with him to Switserland and then it was lost.....
ROB is supposed to have done all this printing and his rogatory interview shows that his recall is far from total!

Really interesting stuff Tigger. Do we know if the Christmas 2005 picture was the very first to be released? This case gets curiouser and curiouser.

by Angelique 09.12.11 15:34

tigger wrote:
jmac wrote: snip

Now we learn that in photographs a little fleck in the eye was exaggerated! This would have to have been done a short time after Madeleine`s disappearance, I think. How is it possible for distraught parents to behave like that?

snip.

In the GNR report or the PJ report (McCannfiles) one of the officers noted that there was a pile (30 to 40) of A4 quality photographs ready as well as a pile of posters which was run off on the MW printer that night. However, a mere four hours or so after her disappearance the iconic photograph, fully photoshopped, and complete with coloboma, was ready to go. The photo dates from Christmas 2005!
Unfortunately for TM, the PJ found out that there was no printer at MW which could print photo quality. The paper wasn't available anywhere in PdL. Subsequently, a girl who worked there, said they'd used her portable printer which took USB keys.
We still have a problem, it's pretty curious to go on holiday with a USB key (no laptops apparently) containing this photo of Maddie with the eye defect. That means the 'adjustment' was done in the UK.
The printer was never found, since the girls' boyfriend took it with him to Switserland and then it was lost.....
ROB is supposed to have done all this printing and his rogatory interview shows that his recall is far from total!

tigger

Its been quite a while since I ran through any statements Rogatory or otherwise - but I do remember one of the Tapas 7 being asked about the photographs/this photo. Which ever one it was made a mess of his answer, something "they, we were looking for one from the front".

Is this the statement from Rob that you are referring to ?

I felt when reading it he slipped up and wasn't supposed to have mentioned it but considering a photo showing Madeleine's face would be appropriate maybe I am wrong to suspect that they wanted a photo in order to show the coloboma and that this was a pre-arranged thing.

by rainbow-fairy 09.12.11 18:37

Angelique wrote:
tigger wrote:
jmac wrote: snip

Now we learn that in photographs a little fleck in the eye was exaggerated! This would have to have been done a short time after Madeleine`s disappearance, I think. How is it possible for distraught parents to behave like that?

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

In the GNR report or the PJ report (McCannfiles) one of the officers noted that there was a pile (30 to 40) of A4 quality photographs ready as well as a pile of posters which was run off on the MW printer that night. However, a mere four hours or so after her disappearance the iconic photograph, fully photoshopped, and complete with coloboma, was ready to go. The photo dates from Christmas 2005!
Unfortunately for TM, the PJ found out that there was no printer at MW which could print photo quality. The paper wasn't available anywhere in PdL. Subsequently, a girl who worked there, said they'd used her portable printer which took USB keys.
We still have a problem, it's pretty curious to go on holiday with a USB key (no laptops apparently) containing this photo of Maddie with the eye defect. That means the 'adjustment' was done in the UK.
The printer was never found, since the girls' boyfriend took it with him to Switserland and then it was lost.....
ROB is supposed to have done all this printing and his rogatory interview shows that his recall is far from total!

tigger

Its been quite a while since I ran through any statements Rogatory or otherwise - but I do remember one of the Tapas 7 being asked about the photographs/this photo. Which ever one it was made a mess of his answer, something "they, we were looking for one from the front".

Is this the statement from Rob that you are referring to ?

I felt when reading it he slipped up and wasn't supposed to have mentioned it but considering a photo showing Madeleine's face would be appropriate maybe I am wrong to suspect that they wanted a photo in order to show the coloboma and that this was a pre-arranged thing.

I very much doubt you are wrong, Angelique... Wink

by **PeterMac** 19.04.12 16:42

I love the conditional way in which Kate says
"If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye."
Well - you are not, and you have.

by rainbow-fairy 19.04.12 18:17

PeterMac wrote:I love the conditional way in which Kate says
"If I'm honest, we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye."
Well - you are not, and you have.

Its a linguistic classic, PeterMac - see Dr Roberts. "If I'm being honest" - and if you're not being honest, what then?
The same with 'actually' - when Kate says "And I just stood there, actually' - its all deceptive.
Were you taught to use Fornensic linguistics in the Force, PeterMac?

by Cristobell 19.04.12 18:25

Just read on JATYK that it was the PJ who published details of Madeleine's coloboma, not the McCanns. I wonder how long it will take for this new 'truth' to be established?

by rainbow-fairy 19.04.12 18:55

Cristobell wrote:Just read on JATYK that it was the PJ who published details of Madeleine's coloboma, not the McCanns. I wonder how long it will take for this new 'truth' to be established?

Just like the skanky pair they protect and defend, they really believe they can re-write history!
How in hell would the PJ even know if Maddie had a coloboma or not, seeing as her medical records were withheld?
And don't we all remember the clear advice the McCanns were given BY the PJ that to advertise her 'defect' would be ' a death sentence'. Gerry infamously said "It was a risky strategy, but in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy".
What saddo's, churning out yet more 'accounts of the truth' - but let us not forget - there is only ONE 'THE truth'...