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

by Guest 19.04.12 21:13

rainbow-fairy wrote:
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'...

Yes, it was the McCanns, from the Vanity Fair interview................

Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”

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

by rainbow-fairy 20.04.12 0:24

candyfloss wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
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'...

Yes, it was the McCanns, from the Vanity Fair interview................

Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”

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

TY for the link candyfloss, you're amazing I don't know how you do it!
I just don't for the life of me understand why the JATYK members (all five of them) write such demonstrably false nonsense. Do they really think the info and evidence will all have been 'whoosh-clunked' or are they just desperate to convince themselves and defend Team McCann at all costs?
Its sad enough being a liar. But lying to yourself really IS tragic.

by Willo 20.04.12 0:38

I sometimes wonder if these pro McCann forums are actually run by the McCann clan themselves. It must be hard for them to maintain the sugar sweet personas that they display to the media and British public. These forums perhaps let them vent all the pent up frustrations they hold as well as agitating the muddied waters even more. It would not at all surprise me if some of the IP addresses of the forum members lead straight to Rothley or other districts where other McCann relations reside.

by Ribisl 20.04.12 0:50

High Flying Canine said (quite succinctly)

Its sad enough being a liar. But lying to yourself really IS tragic.

I feel there is a new topic coming up

by **tigger** 20.04.12 6:45

The Vanity Fair interview is very important imo. Because of this article in Expresso: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

To 'Expresso', Clarence Mitchell revealed additionally that the extensive feature devoted to the Maddie case in the February issue of 'Vanity Fair' didn't please the McCanns. Although they're used to denying the news that is published daily in the Portuguese and British press, this instance "goes further".

In Mitchell's words, the incorrections start right at the beginning of the article, where it's announced "the first interview with Gerry McCann since he and his wife, Kate, were declared arguidos". And the conversation between the 'Vanity Fair' journalist, Judy Bachrach, and Gerry — that took place at the end of September — "should not have been transcribed. We agreed previously that it would be all off the record and the reporter agreed. We were caught by surprise".
unquote

by **tigger** 20.04.12 6:58

David Payne also mentioned the coloboma: rogatory interview.

Madeleine was their miracle. She was obviously very unique with the fact that she'd got the, you know, the iris defect, errr... 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.""

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

by tuom 05.05.12 23:56

I may be wrong here but correct me if I am , I remember in the first few days of MMC being missing that I listened to John McCann saying on Sky News that MMC had a distinctive feature in her eye ? I think this was the first mention of it , as my husband and I both were wondering why it was not announced sooner

by **PeterMac** 04.08.13 11:13

I had missed this one.
Didn't make much of it, TO BE HONEST ! ! ! !

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

Kevin, perhaps you can answer this. Why do your clients LIE ?

by worriedmum 04.08.13 12:59

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

by Guest 04.08.13 13:09

I don't remember hearing about that sighting before.

More here.

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

No surprise that she was with a scruffy foreigner!

I'm sure it's a silly question but what did the CCTV show?

by Hicks 04.08.13 13:38

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I don't remember hearing about that sighting before.

More here.

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

No surprise that she was with a scruffy foreigner!

I'm sure it's a silly question but what did the CCTV show?

Whatever it was on the CCTV the French police say it was not Madeleine.
[url=http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=cctv footage montpellier maddie mccann&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuknews%2F1579366%2FNew-Madeleine-McCann-sighting-not-her.html&ei=LUr-UerSD8mIhQe8zYHQCw&usg=AFQjCNEotHO5cf1VxeN3L-mjE5UQ226Sdg][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by worriedmum 04.08.13 15:01

snipped from the link , from approx 1 minute onwards,

''.they immediately recognised as being Madeleine Mccann, they've been following the news reports ever since her disappearance and what makes this slightly different to other sightings is that they recognised the slight deformity that Madeleine has in one of her eyes.'

by Angelique 31.08.13 9:15

I have just found this on mccanfiles:

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

Maddy McCann Alive? CNN Transcripts

Aired August 27, 2013 - 20:00 ET

Snip:

"GRACE: What is the mark on her eye? What is that?

MORRONE: There's pigment in the body that's put in different places. Like the color around your iris, it's a specific pigment that's generic, and black specks have been put in the eye by design to reduce glare and sunlight, so that people from Northern European areas where eyes are green and blue, can tolerate the sunlight just as good as people with brown eyes. People with brown eyes tend to tan better and they don't have the need for sunglasses. So it's an adaptation we've had over thousands of years."

I don't quite understand how this change in the McCanns description - it's just a fleck/we didn't make much of it - can have so easily slipped into the mantra in America?

by Guest 31.08.13 9:28

It's equally baffling why the British mainstream media didn't comment on this massive U turn either.

The promoting of the alleged defect must have been one of the biggest advertising campaigns ever.

by Smokeandmirrors 31.08.13 9:51

I think what makes this whole U turn over the coloboma so reprehensible is that from the of, the McCanns have sought to engage the public so fully, taking up air space, taking funds from individuals and the public purse alike. Can't remember the exact wording, but in one televised interview they bemoaned that it had fallen to them as parents to look for their daughter, and how that wasn't acceptable, or words to that effect.

The whole defying of the police in releasing the information about the eye defect, even though the police warned the McCanns in doing so could seal her fate, was that it was a "marketing ploy" which was a phrase that disgusted many to the core. But more than that, it was promoted as the defining factor that would make her recognisable, would bring her home.

So several years on, and a girl who would be unrecognisable from the toddler who disappeared in 2007, and without the much promoted defect in the eye, what on earth are the general public supposed to look out for or help search for? There is absolutely NOTHING to go on, so all the good quality wristbands, luggage tags and money are not going to make one iota of difference whichever way you wish to interpret the "official" story.

by Penfold 31.08.13 10:06

In the Irish TV interview [sorry -link escapes me atm, am about to go out!] They were talking about the age enhanced photo and Gerry says ' It doesn't matter how closely the picture resembles the child, as long as it does the job"

WHAT ?? !!

ETA -decided to find link before going out!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg

by Angelique 31.08.13 10:08

Smokeandmirrors

In a nutshell!

"So several years on, and a girl who would be unrecognisable from the toddler who disappeared in 2007, and without the much promoted defect in the eye, what on earth are the general public supposed to look out for or help search for? There is absolutely NOTHING to go on, so all the good quality wristbands, luggage tags and money are not going to make one iota of difference whichever way you wish to interpret the "official" story."

It has become so obvious that this was the intention from the beginning. Nothing like "fooling the masses". I must say I am impressed! From beginning to end they (whoever is the manipulator) took total control. So much so, that the outcome is already on it's way - it's not looking good to me. But I was always of the opinion we would not see anything like the Truth, however hard we tried.

by **tigger** 31.08.13 16:05

Penfold wrote:In the Irish TV interview [sorry -link escapes me atm, am about to go out!] They were talking about the age enhanced photo and Gerry says ' It doesn't matter how closely the picture resembles the child, as long as it does the job"

WHAT ?? !!

ETA -decided to find link before going out!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg

Umph! So what job might that be? Giving the impression they are actively trying to find her?

by Guest 31.08.13 17:33

I guess that he just meant that the picture - even if it looks nothing like Madeleine and nobody can know for sure whether it does or not - would remind people to be alert.

As long as other people are actively involved, there's no need for Team McCann to do anything useful.

by canada12 01.03.14 9:47

Just resurrecting this topic as I find the whole idea that the McCanns are now downplaying the coloboma quite rich, considering how much effort and media attention was focused on her eye when she first disappeared. It was nonstop wall to wall coloboma, look into my eyes, this is THE distinctive feature to look for... and then, all of a sudden, as the review is announced, a complete U-turn by Kate and Gerry... oh no - it wasn't that distinctive - just a fleck - and we didn't place that much emphasis on it...

And then, in light of the trial currently awaiting resumption in Portugal... is this not a trial about how Dr Amaral's book hindered the search for Madeleine? Can we not now also make the claim, with certainty, that the actions of Kate and Gerry hindered the search more than anything? They deliberately released and promoted false information about Madeleine - her description was deliberately false!

The false coloboma, in my opinion, did more damage to "the search for Madeleine" than anything written in Amaral's book.

by sami 01.03.14 10:05

tigger wrote:
Penfold wrote:In the Irish TV interview [sorry -link escapes me atm, am about to go out!] They were talking about the age enhanced photo and Gerry says ' It doesn't matter how closely the picture resembles the child, as long as it does the job"

WHAT ?? !!

ETA -decided to find link before going out!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLvnfcl-Zkg
Umph! So what job might that be? Giving the impression they are actively trying to find her?

The job was to tug at the purse strings of an unsuspecting public. The job could also have been to cause confusion amongst the holidaymakers and staff at PDL that week. Did they see the girl in the red dress or the girl at the pool ? Side by side, they could be two different children or two children with striking similarities, or perhaps the same child, to a casual on-looker. Gerry likes vague.

If the job were to use a photograph to find a missing child, then it would matter very much the image was a recent, exact likeness of the child, in the here and now.

Rather like showing a photo of a six week old puppy to find your ten year old lost dog.

by **Jill Havern** 09.03.16 8:01

McCanns begin final leg of Madeleine campaign

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
@stevenmorris20
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Monday 11 June 2007

Quote: While the tour will reach a halt, the McCanns - and their team of advisors - will find other ways to make sure people do not forget Madeleine.

The family has, for instance, been in talks with the internet giant Google to ask whether the double O in the logo could be replaced with Madeleine's distinctive eyes. Unquote

Kate McCann to Piers Morgan: 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.

by Cmaryholmes 09.03.16 12:55

'If I'm honest'.......

by MrsC 09.03.16 17:58

Cmaryholmes wrote:'If I'm honest'.......

And she gets away with it.

by Julie 15.06.16 14:14

I've always thought that the change of coloboma was because it was in some way significant with her 'dissapearence', but couldn't work out how.
Linked with the fact that I can't shake the belief that Madeleine was used by a 'cult' of some sort, linked with the Freemasons, I personally cannot rule out the idea that she was chosen because of her eye defect. I know that the serpent is symbolic of freemasons, as is the Eye of God. And I read (can't remember where but it will be google-able!) that some cults believe that the only explanation for coloboma is that it is represents the 'seed of the serpent'.

This is extremely far fetched stuff I admit, but I just can't help believeing she was invloved in some kind of satanic ritual - and this may help to explain exactly why she was chosen.

by Yvie Han 24.02.17 12:06

I possibly have a theory why they lied about the Coloboma ....

It is on the " what my sister in law used to use " thread

There was a Childrens medicine that was all the Buzz in 2007 called MEDISED, it was paracetemol with a sedative to aid sleep. Many parents were using it so they would get a good sleep, 8 + hours, as it knocked the kids out.

In 2007 it was recommended 3+ MONTHS

This changed sometime in 2008/2009 to 6+ YEARS !!!!

Quite a HUGE difference.

THEN it was taken completely OFF the market in the UK - DISCONTINUED.

Anyway today I was reading about it and I was alerted to the ONE indication where it says DO NOT USE and that is for an EYE Condition, which has many associations with Coloboma.

It's very very strange that a children's medicine has ONLY ONE , indication and that is of an EYE condition.

Just thought is it coincidental !!!! I think there is something lurking.

by Guest 24.02.17 13:09

Yvie Han wrote:I possibly have a theory why they lied about the Coloboma ....

It is on the " what my sister in law used to use " thread

There was a Childrens medicine that was all the Buzz in 2007 called MEDISED, it was paracetemol with a sedative to aid sleep. Many parents were using it so they would get a good sleep, 8 + hours, as it knocked the kids out.

In 2007 it was recommended 3+ MONTHS

This changed sometime in 2008/2009 to 6+ YEARS !!!!

Quite a HUGE difference.

THEN it was taken completely OFF the market in the UK - DISCONTINUED.

Anyway today I was reading about it and I was alerted to the ONE indication where it says DO NOT USE and that is for an EYE Condition, which has many associations with Coloboma.

It's very very strange that a children's medicine has ONLY ONE , indication and that is of an EYE condition.

Just thought is it coincidental !!!! I think there is something lurking.

That is amazing - I wonder if there are any baby photographs that could support this theory?

by MayMuse 24.02.17 13:59

The campaign for Madeleine was to LOOK ( into her eyes) for identification on searching for her. It was widely published she had a coloboma.
Later the McCanns in interview said that they didn't put too much emphasis on her eye and that it was just a fleck...it was played down?

There has been a great deal of debate.
More can be found on this thread and if you use the search bar on the forum.

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

by tinkier 24.02.17 15:22

What's_up_doc? wrote:
Yvie Han wrote:I possibly have a theory why they lied about the Coloboma ....

It is on the " what my sister in law used to use " thread

There was a Childrens medicine that was all the Buzz in 2007 called MEDISED, it was paracetemol with a sedative to aid sleep. Many parents were using it so they would get a good sleep, 8 + hours, as it knocked the kids out.

In 2007 it was recommended 3+ MONTHS

This changed sometime in 2008/2009 to 6+ YEARS !!!!

Quite a HUGE difference.

THEN it was taken completely OFF the market in the UK - DISCONTINUED.

Anyway today I was reading about it and I was alerted to the ONE indication where it says DO NOT USE and that is for an EYE Condition, which has many associations with Coloboma.

It's very very strange that a children's medicine has ONLY ONE , indication and that is of an EYE condition.

Just thought is it coincidental !!!! I think there is something lurking.
That is amazing - I wonder if there are any baby photographs that could support this theory

I was having a look on the national archives just to see if I could find out anything re Medised. There is a whole list of products for treating colds in children that were re labelled to remove the dosages for children under 6 years in feb 2009. Looking into it further, it seems both Medised and CALPOL NIGHT (same active ingredients, different names) was actually discontinued in the UK. It certainly states it's contraindicated, not to be given in a condition called closed angle glaucoma. People with coloboma may also have other eye abnormalities e.g glaucoma.

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

by Yvie Han 24.02.17 15:31

tinkier wrote:
What's_up_doc? wrote:
Yvie Han wrote:I possibly have a theory why they lied about the Coloboma ....

It is on the " what my sister in law used to use " thread

There was a Childrens medicine that was all the Buzz in 2007 called MEDISED, it was paracetemol with a sedative to aid sleep. Many parents were using it so they would get a good sleep, 8 + hours, as it knocked the kids out.

In 2007 it was recommended 3+ MONTHS

This changed sometime in 2008/2009 to 6+ YEARS !!!!

Quite a HUGE difference.

THEN it was taken completely OFF the market in the UK - DISCONTINUED.

Anyway today I was reading about it and I was alerted to the ONE indication where it says DO NOT USE and that is for an EYE Condition, which has many associations with Coloboma.

It's very very strange that a children's medicine has ONLY ONE , indication and that is of an EYE condition.

Just thought is it coincidental !!!! I think there is something lurking.
That is amazing - I wonder if there are any baby photographs that could support this theory

I was having a look on the national archives just to see if I could find out anything re Medised. There is a whole list of products for treating colds in children that were re labelled to remove the dosages for children under 6 years in feb 2009. Looking into it further, it seems both Medised and CALPOL NIGHT (same active ingredients, different names) was actually discontinued in the UK. It certainly states it's contraindicated, not to be given in a condition called closed angle glaucoma. People with coloboma may also have other eye abnormalities e.g glaucoma.

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

Yes, I found it very coincidental, I have since read medical prof recommended Medised to a youngster for a few weeks to sedate after major operation.

The change in the age from 3 months to 6 years old apparently first came into force around September 2007, from what I have read today.

It was then taken off the UK market around 2012 entirely.

It was a medication many G.P's suggested, usually when that is the case they are getting a good backhander for promoting it.

It first came on sale around 2004.

The DO NOT USE - with the Acute Angle Glaucoma was what got me. I thought it was strange, the only thing on the DO NOT USE list was about an eye condition.