McCanns Easter break Donegal 2007

Ah yes Fiona and GREGOR but they live in Glasgow not Donegal. It would be interesting to see the unclipped photo if that's ever been published.

P.S. Here's a reminder of the cousins in 2008 looking younger than they did in 2007!

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

Jean wrote:Ah yes Fiona and GREGOR but they live in Glasgow not Donegal. It would be interesting to see the unclipped photo if that's ever been published.

I'm sorry, im not english, and get messed up with the names pretty easily...

To avoid endless posts of the same photographs:

Thanks to Moa and Look4Maddy:

Avatar: absolutely not Maddie, teeth alone prove that. No gaps except one in the front.

Ice cream photograph, when it's full size - (thank you L4M) high resolution, it only strengthens my opinion:
1. non participation in action.
2. with this high resolution I can see a couple of 'fold' lines under Maddie's left ear which have no business being there, this would make sense if the neck didn't belong to the face and the original face was bent forwards. Which would make sense with eating ice-cream. The ice cream she's holding should have collapsed at the point, impossible to hold it like that for even a second.
3. with the twins, definitely Maddie. I expect someone grinned at her just like that and she imitated it.
4. pale blue pyjamas, Maddie, coloboma pasted in close to 6 o'clock
5 . not at all sure about this one, may well be face pasted on, reason is the rather knuckled hand holding the scarf, looks too old.
coloboma shopped in at 7 o'clock. Face heavily bleached out, no eye bags. Probably Maddie.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Ribisl wrote:I agree with you Moa. I don't see anything wrong with her hand or with this picture as a whole.
Btw did you read some posts pointing out that your avatar shows young Kate and not Madeleine?

Naughty naughty, Ribisl. Obviously you have read them so surely your claim above should be 'BTW, did you seen some posts that believe your avatar picture to be Kate, not Madeleine'?
I know the posts you are referring to seeing as they are mine and tigger's. Nowhere did I state it WAS Kate. My post was clear enough about how I noticed it first etc etc. Its not fair to misrepresent our posts like that.
To recap, yes, even now when looking at the t-shirt picture of K+G and Moa's avatar I see a massive similarity. I spent much time zooming in on the pictures, every time I saw Moa post it was niggling at me, that mouth, teeth, cheeks, jaw...
Of course I'm probably waaay off the mark but I stand by what I see.
I assume you don't think so, Ribisl?

I said what I said rainbow-fairy because I actually agreed with you and tigger. But now I have seen the picture Moa's posted (the top one) I am not so sure any more. And I see Look4Maddy has posted the avatar picture with her name across it which seems to suggest it's one of the 'official' photos of Madeleine released by the Mcs (not that proves anything). I did ask Look4Maddy earlier why she thought there were so few pictures from Portugal given her connection with the Mcs, but so far I haven't read her reply.

Ribisl wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Ribisl wrote:I agree with you Moa. I don't see anything wrong with her hand or with this picture as a whole.
Btw did you read some posts pointing out that your avatar shows young Kate and not Madeleine?

Naughty naughty, Ribisl. Obviously you have read them so surely your claim above should be 'BTW, did you seen some posts that believe your avatar picture to be Kate, not Madeleine'?
I know the posts you are referring to seeing as they are mine and tigger's. Nowhere did I state it WAS Kate. My post was clear enough about how I noticed it first etc etc. Its not fair to misrepresent our posts like that.
To recap, yes, even now when looking at the t-shirt picture of K+G and Moa's avatar I see a massive similarity. I spent much time zooming in on the pictures, every time I saw Moa post it was niggling at me, that mouth, teeth, cheeks, jaw...
Of course I'm probably waaay off the mark but I stand by what I see.
I assume you don't think so, Ribisl?

I said what I said rainbow-fairy because I actually agreed with you and tigger. But now I have seen the picture Moa's posted (the top one) I am not so sure any more. And I see Look4Maddy has posted the avatar picture with her name across it which seems to suggest it's one of the 'official' photos of Madeleine released by the Mcs (not that proves anything). I did ask Look4Maddy earlier why she thought there were so few pictures from Portugal given her connection with the Mcs, but so far I haven't read her reply.

I am sorry, i haven't gotten your question. I don't know why there arn't more pictures released from Portugal. I assume there atleast must have been a picture taken on the plane? its a 2hr flight?! even with a phone?! if they have time to film the kids walking up the stairs, there must be apicture of them sitting on the plane?? Same as the kids standing out the appartment? or in the morning? Inside the appartment? I know my friend who has a kid aged 4, whenever they go on holiday there are tons of pictures, always one of the girl standing outside the appartment. As said in the interiview once "Kate and gerry Loved taking pictures of her & Madeleine loved being photograped"

tigger wrote:To avoid endless posts of the same photographs:

Thanks to Moa and Look4Maddy:

Avatar: absolutely not Maddie, teeth alone prove that. No gaps except one in the front.

Ice cream photograph, when it's full size - (thank you L4M) high resolution, it only strengthens my opinion:
1. non participation in action.
2. with this high resolution I can see a couple of 'fold' lines under Maddie's left ear which have no business being there, this would make sense if the neck didn't belong to the face and the original face was bent forwards. Which would make sense with eating ice-cream. The ice cream she's holding should have collapsed at the point, impossible to hold it like that for even a second.
3. with the twins, definitely Maddie. I expect someone grinned at her just like that and she imitated it.
4. pale blue pyjamas, Maddie, coloboma pasted in close to 6 o'clock
5 . not at all sure about this one, may well be face pasted on, reason is the rather knuckled hand holding the scarf, looks too old.
coloboma shopped in at 7 o'clock. Face heavily bleached out, no eye bags. Probably Maddie.

And to avoid that we should take your oppinion as the truth then ? After all this is just your oppinions Tigger... If thats what you meant about avoid endless post about the pictures? Or did you mean not having the pictures in the post.. I might have misunderstood you

Ribisl wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Ribisl wrote:I agree with you Moa. I don't see anything wrong with her hand or with this picture as a whole.
Btw did you read some posts pointing out that your avatar shows young Kate and not Madeleine?

Naughty naughty, Ribisl. Obviously you have read them so surely your claim above should be 'BTW, did you seen some posts that believe your avatar picture to be Kate, not Madeleine'?
I know the posts you are referring to seeing as they are mine and tigger's. Nowhere did I state it WAS Kate. My post was clear enough about how I noticed it first etc etc. Its not fair to misrepresent our posts like that.
To recap, yes, even now when looking at the t-shirt picture of K+G and Moa's avatar I see a massive similarity. I spent much time zooming in on the pictures, every time I saw Moa post it was niggling at me, that mouth, teeth, cheeks, jaw...
Of course I'm probably waaay off the mark but I stand by what I see.
I assume you don't think so, Ribisl?

I said what I said rainbow-fairy because I actually agreed with you and tigger. But now I have seen the picture Moa's posted (the top one) I am not so sure any more. And I see Look4Maddy has posted the avatar picture with her name across it which seems to suggest it's one of the 'official' photos of Madeleine released by the Mcs (not that proves anything). I did ask Look4Maddy earlier why she thought there were so few pictures from Portugal given her connection with the Mcs, but so far I haven't read her reply.

Hey no worries Ribisl, I was half-teasing with the 'naughty naughty' comment - I'd just woken up and hadn't had my cup of tea by then! I think I read it too critically, when I re-read it didn't look as much like I'd stated it WAS Kate as I first thought... Big rose for you...
Conversely to you I am now more sure after seeing the bigger version with Look4Maddy scrawled over it. I can't look at it without seeing the pic of Kate on the header.
With regards pics from Portugal, the question I find most pertinent is this; 'WHY was the 'last photo' (pool) not printed in the bewk? The last photo before she was 'abducted'?' Beggars belief - but I do have some ideas why it wasn't. Would be interesting to hear what others think.

Jean wrote:

Gillyspot wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:To be clear, I did not say I thought it actually was a prosthetic arm. I simply threw in a suggestion. To me, the hand and wrist area look very wrong. I have no idea why it should be that way - just that something appears to be wrong. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Oh hello to the latest pro McCann troll to venture here. I hope you aren't trying to cause any trouble.

Lance Boyle @BoyleLance
@JillyCL @DodgyDrPayne Mmmm you must definitely be the black sheep then BAAAAAAAAAA pmsl Bring back fantasy islnd is all I can say #mccann

Oh dear - I did wonder about him with an earlier posting with some dodgy information on a member of Team McCann. In view of his avatar he seems to have been trying to make a monkey of us all!

Okay, butting in here...why on earth would you think that the poster Lance de Boils is a troll from the post they made? I've known this poster for the past five years under a different name and I can say with 100% confidence that this poster is not a troll but a very well respected poster by those that know them. What "dodgy information" on a member of Team McCann are you referring to Jean?

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:To avoid endless posts of the same photographs:

Thanks to Moa and Look4Maddy:

Avatar: absolutely not Maddie, teeth alone prove that. No gaps except one in the front.

Ice cream photograph, when it's full size - (thank you L4M) high resolution, it only strengthens my opinion:
1. non participation in action.
2. with this high resolution I can see a couple of 'fold' lines under Maddie's left ear which have no business being there, this would make sense if the neck didn't belong to the face and the original face was bent forwards. Which would make sense with eating ice-cream. The ice cream she's holding should have collapsed at the point, impossible to hold it like that for even a second.
3. with the twins, definitely Maddie. I expect someone grinned at her just like that and she imitated it.
4. pale blue pyjamas, Maddie, coloboma pasted in close to 6 o'clock
5 . not at all sure about this one, may well be face pasted on, reason is the rather knuckled hand holding the scarf, looks too old.
coloboma shopped in at 7 o'clock. Face heavily bleached out, no eye bags. Probably Maddie.

And to avoid that we should take your oppinion as the truth then ? After all this is just your oppinions Tigger... If thats what you meant about avoid endless post about the pictures? Or did you mean not having the pictures in the post.. I might have misunderstood you

Exactly that Moa, to avoid making the topic very long with repeats of pictures. I just quickly listed my take on them. L4M does post very high resolution pictures - I was pointing out what else I could see.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Maddie's hands, but it is funny that in both the rock photo and the scarf photo her hand looks too 'old' . Toddlers have plump little hands, not with big knuckles.
One reason I doubt the Donegal pictures is that they were available so soon, nothing about the story connected seems to be true - the 29 to 47 members at the reunion - the weather,the actual close ties, the fact that Kate herself states in the bewk that it was their first visit and most of all, because the relative proportions of the children are wrong. Maddie is almost the same size as Sean - so if it was a smallish 3 yr old, and the poster photo is of a small 'compact' girl - I'm just wondering if that girl was the sub.
Although someone spotted Amelie's jacket hanging in 5a on one photo, I've never seen that pretty dress that 'Maddie' wears there in any other snap. Neither has Kate mentioned this dress.

Firstly, that Twitter account has nothing whatsoever to do with me. I don't use Twitter, full stop.
Secondly, my avatar is simply one I selected from the choice provided on this here forum because I was being lazy and couldn't be bothered to use anything more original.
Thirdly, what info have I given out that someone thinks is "dodgy"?
Fourthly, I am here for one reason alone, and that is to look for answers to explain what really happened - no more no less. I make no claim as to knowing what really went on in PDL that summer. All I do know is that a lot of lies have been told - not least by the T9 and indeed G&K. That much is obvious.
And lastly, I came to this forum in good faith. I don't take kindly to being insulted for no good reason. I understand, however, that this is possibly due to the assumption that someone using a similar name to mine has been posting stupid things on Twitter. However, please be sure before jumping to conclusions.
Can we now please move on and get past this silliness? Thank you.

tigger wrote:

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:To avoid endless posts of the same photographs:

Thanks to Moa and Look4Maddy:

Avatar: absolutely not Maddie, teeth alone prove that. No gaps except one in the front.

Ice cream photograph, when it's full size - (thank you L4M) high resolution, it only strengthens my opinion:
1. non participation in action.
2. with this high resolution I can see a couple of 'fold' lines under Maddie's left ear which have no business being there, this would make sense if the neck didn't belong to the face and the original face was bent forwards. Which would make sense with eating ice-cream. The ice cream she's holding should have collapsed at the point, impossible to hold it like that for even a second.
3. with the twins, definitely Maddie. I expect someone grinned at her just like that and she imitated it.
4. pale blue pyjamas, Maddie, coloboma pasted in close to 6 o'clock
5 . not at all sure about this one, may well be face pasted on, reason is the rather knuckled hand holding the scarf, looks too old.
coloboma shopped in at 7 o'clock. Face heavily bleached out, no eye bags. Probably Maddie.

And to avoid that we should take your oppinion as the truth then ? After all this is just your oppinions Tigger... If thats what you meant about avoid endless post about the pictures? Or did you mean not having the pictures in the post.. I might have misunderstood you

Exactly that Moa, to avoid making the topic very long with repeats of pictures. I just quickly listed my take on them. L4M does post very high resolution pictures - I was pointing out what else I could see.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Maddie's hands, but it is funny that in both the rock photo and the scarf photo her hand looks too 'old' . Toddlers have plump little hands, not with big knuckles.
One reason I doubt the Donegal pictures is that they were available so soon, nothing about the story connected seems to be true - the 29 to 47 members at the reunion - the weather,the actual close ties, the fact that Kate herself states in the bewk that it was their first visit and most of all, because the relative proportions of the children are wrong. Maddie is almost the same size as Sean - so if it was a smallish 3 yr old, and the poster photo is of a small 'compact' girl - I'm just wondering if that girl was the sub.
Although someone spotted Amelie's jacket hanging in 5a on one photo, I've never seen that pretty dress that 'Maddie' wears there in any other snap. Neither has Kate mentioned this dress.

Than im sorry for taking it the wrong way at first thought ..Always having the defending clows out lol !

I do find things odd, there are pictures im finding odd, like the make up pic, but I truly do not believe that they manipulated pictures years back..I see no reason for doing so..I believe the PDL pictures could have been tampered with..

On the other side, I do find it most odd that K said in the cowell? interview that they never made a big thing out of the bearly visible FLECK in her eye,and that they also now where sure it was not colomba!! When their entire campaign was based on exacly that FLECK. Why ? Maybe it is true and they just at the time, to gain publicity, over dramatised that fleck? Or are they lying about the fleck, and it never was there? If that is the case,. I guess a lot of people who has met Madeleine would react on that if she acually didnt have it..

So many answers to manipulated pictures, involves again a lot of people in the knowing.And I do not believe that all those people , not one would say
something?

I know the truth hasn't been told in this case, I strongly believe K+G knows what happened.. But I do find it hard to truly find a good reason for manipulating all those pictures, and lie about the fleck in her eye, other than making the fleck into a colomba, as a good marketing ploy...That also means IMO they knew she was already "gone", so if the information going out in the public wasnt accurate it didnt matter, because she was nowhere to be found anyway..Can also explain why they gave the wrong hight, old picture so on.. Maybe thats why it took so long to publish the "last" photo, because that would be the hardest one to look at if she accidently died...Maybe thats why they chose a less prettier,younger picture of her the first weeks ?

I don't know, there are many things pointing in many direction, most direction just stops at one point for my part,it gets to complicated.. I believe in a less complicated scenario.. I do not believe it was preplanned, unsure about the sub, that could be if she died earlier in the vacation..But im not leaning on that theory either...

I believe she died , by accident, on that holliday. How, when and where, is what im hoping to one day get the answers to....

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:To avoid endless posts of the same photographs:

Thanks to Moa and Look4Maddy:

Avatar: absolutely not Maddie, teeth alone prove that. No gaps except one in the front.

Ice cream photograph, when it's full size - (thank you L4M) high resolution, it only strengthens my opinion:
1. non participation in action.
2. with this high resolution I can see a couple of 'fold' lines under Maddie's left ear which have no business being there, this would make sense if the neck didn't belong to the face and the original face was bent forwards. Which would make sense with eating ice-cream. The ice cream she's holding should have collapsed at the point, impossible to hold it like that for even a second.
3. with the twins, definitely Maddie. I expect someone grinned at her just like that and she imitated it.
4. pale blue pyjamas, Maddie, coloboma pasted in close to 6 o'clock
5 . not at all sure about this one, may well be face pasted on, reason is the rather knuckled hand holding the scarf, looks too old.
coloboma shopped in at 7 o'clock. Face heavily bleached out, no eye bags. Probably Maddie.

And to avoid that we should take your oppinion as the truth then ? After all this is just your oppinions Tigger... If thats what you meant about avoid endless post about the pictures? Or did you mean not having the pictures in the post.. I might have misunderstood you [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Exactly that Moa, to avoid making the topic very long with repeats of pictures. I just quickly listed my take on them. L4M does post very high resolution pictures - I was pointing out what else I could see.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Maddie's hands, but it is funny that in both the rock photo and the scarf photo her hand looks too 'old' . Toddlers have plump little hands, not with big knuckles.
One reason I doubt the Donegal pictures is that they were available so soon, nothing about the story connected seems to be true - the 29 to 47 members at the reunion - the weather,the actual close ties, the fact that Kate herself states in the bewk that it was their first visit and most of all, because the relative proportions of the children are wrong. Maddie is almost the same size as Sean - so if it was a smallish 3 yr old, and the poster photo is of a small 'compact' girl - I'm just wondering if that girl was the sub.
Although someone spotted Amelie's jacket hanging in 5a on one photo, I've never seen that pretty dress that 'Maddie' wears there in any other snap. Neither has Kate mentioned this dress.

Than im sorry for taking it the wrong way at first thought [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] ..Always having the defending clows out lol ! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I do find things odd, there are pictures im finding odd, like the make up pic, but I truly do not believe that they manipulated pictures years back..I see no reason for doing so..I believe the PDL pictures could have been tampered with..

On the other side, I do find it most odd that K said in the cowell? interview that they never made a big thing out of the bearly visible FLECK in her eye,and that they also now where sure it was not colomba!! When their entire campaign was based on exacly that FLECK. Why ? Maybe it is true and they just at the time, to gain publicity, over dramatised that fleck? Or are they lying about the fleck, and it never was there? If that is the case,. I guess a lot of people who has met Madeleine would react on that if she acually didnt have it..

So many answers to manipulated pictures, involves again a lot of people in the knowing.And I do not believe that all those people , not one would say
something?

I know the truth hasn't been told in this case, I strongly believe K+G knows what happened.. But I do find it hard to truly find a good reason for manipulating all those pictures, and lie about the fleck in her eye, other than making the fleck into a colomba, as a good marketing ploy...That also means IMO they knew she was already "gone", so if the information going out in the public wasnt accurate it didnt matter, because she was nowhere to be found anyway..Can also explain why they gave the wrong hight, old picture so on.. Maybe thats why it took so long to publish the "last" photo, because that would be the hardest one to look at if she accidently died...Maybe thats why they chose a less prettier,younger picture of her the first weeks ?

I don't know, there are many things pointing in many direction, most direction just stops at one point for my part,it gets to complicated.. I believe in a less complicated scenario.. I do not believe it was preplanned, unsure about the sub, that could be if she died earlier in the vacation..But im not leaning on that theory either...

I believe she died , by accident, on that holliday. How, when and where, is what im hoping to one day get the answers to....

Hi Moa, I believe the interview you are referring to, ie the denial of the coloboma, was with Piers Morgan (ex tabloid editor)

It would be nice to believe Maddie had an accident, but what swings it otherwise for me was the police manual found in the apartment. None of the T9 were Force, so why would they have it? Hardly your average holiday novel!
IMO, sadly, this points to at least some degree of pre-meditation.

Moa wrote yesterday:
I do find things odd, there are pictures im finding odd, like the make up pic, but I truly do not believe that they manipulated pictures years back..I see no reason for doing so..I believe the PDL pictures could have been tampered with..
unquote

Moa - one can tamper with a digital image any time one likes. So a picture taken five years ago can be adapted any which way one likes.
The coloboma and the readiness of the poster photograph as early as a few hours after she went missing is strong evidence of premeditation.

In the May 2011 interview with Piers Morgan they said:
1. they never made much of it
2. it was just a fleck you could only see if you were very close.

It was no news to many people, since the coloboma isn't added in the right place or even has the same shape in all the photographs. So that alone is evidence for photoshopping. I do a lot of life drawing and teach it as well, the most unforgiving thing to draw is the human body. I know exactly how a head should sit on the neck and that's why I'm so hypercritical of all photographs.

Ty pierce Morgan interview is what I was I thinking of..
I believe that book was found in that other villa weeks later ?

I understand you point of view tigger, but Im not sure if you can compare real life drawing with photographing..I know how pictures can lie also and make things look a lot different than they really are due to lighting,angl, camera line etc..

Agree that the so called Colomba looks different in some photos...
I agree that some pictures are odd re ice cream and makeup pic ...

I know pictures can be photoshopped years back, I said I never found a truly good logical explanation for them doing that other than a good marketing ploy and making a lie look more truthful...

I did see that video again last night where Gerry makes a laughing smile in the start when asked about the sightings and people beeing 100 % sure that it's M they saw.. What I hadn't realized before was that the interview was done 3 or 4 months after the event...in the same interview ,at the end, Kate get asked to say something to M ..she gets totally stressed out, rolls her eyes, looks at g, looks at the interviewer and says I lover, she knows I love her, we love her.. And that's all and she did not look into the camera.. I think this at least shows clearly they knew she was dead. It is not a reaction you would find if someone really was in their situation ..

You say things they do strongly suggest pre planning, I think it also can mean other things re my other post ...

To me they do things to keep the lie believable to those who believe and at the same time do things to eas their guilt..

I'm convinced it wasn't pre planned. That's all I'm sure if IMO.

Hi Moa, you're entirely entitled to your point of view. In the beginning I tried everything to get rid of planning - there's simply to much real and circumstantial evidence.
Yes, they knew she was dead and they created a myth of a happy little beautiful girl.
Just one more thing on the photographs - look at the Everton shirt - not the very blond girl, but Maddie. The more you blow it up, the more the head 'floats' in front, it's too far to her left, simply impossible. That one was analyzed by an expert who also said it was a sloppy cut and paste job.

tigger wrote:Hi Moa, you're entirely entitled to your point of view. In the beginning I tried everything to get rid of planning - there's simply to much real and circumstantial evidence.
Yes, they knew she was dead and they created a myth of a happy little beautiful girl.
Just one more thing on the photographs - look at the Everton shirt - not the very blond girl, but Maddie. The more you blow it up, the more the head 'floats' in front, it's too far to her left, simply impossible. That one was analyzed by an expert who also said it was a sloppy cut and paste job.

As I said I do agree that some photo is probably tampered with, but i believe the reason for doing so was a marketing ploy and ease their guilt, not due to pre planned, and by pre planned I mean planned before the holliday..I am open to something happende earlier in the holiday, and in that sence was "pre planned" ...But I think it was an accident, and they covered it up..I think most evidence point in that direction...

All we have is our opinions, as said before, its proofing things that is the hard part..

Do you have a link for the expert analyzing the everton shirt picture? Don't think I have read that before...

I too try to avoid premeditation, because it leads down a very nasty road.
What I can't fit into the accidental death theory is the marketing, branding, the fund and the 5 year long lie about an abduction.
Why they didnt just keep quiet and let the dust settle and it all fizzle out of the public eye is beyond me. They invite ongoing speculation and analysis.

russiandoll wrote:I too try to avoid premeditation, because it leads down a very nasty road.
What I can't fit into the accidental death theory is the marketing, branding, the fund and the 5 year long lie about an abduction.
Why they didnt just keep quiet and let the dust settle and it all fizzle out of the public eye is beyond me. They invite ongoing speculation and analysis.

Maybe they feel they have to do this things, just to make them look ungilty.. Living the lie to the fullest...The more time that goes, the bigger the punishment will bee if the truth comes out.. So maybe they feel that they have to fight more with time, instead of keep silent and stay in the background..And also I think they gotten used to and like the new lifestyle of fame and money and people feeling sorry for them...

I remember in her book, when she describes the moment in church, when G got the idea for the campaign, it always felt like an idea that came over guilt and to cherish their daughter, and remember her, they did this...But they have to do it to fit their lie, and the lie is the abduction so thats what their play is about.

Thats why Kate cant speak to M on camera when asked to in interviews, it cant be comfortable sitting there lying directly to the camera speaking to someone you know are dead. You would feel stupid or get presentation angsiety, if your not a professional acter, and this people are far from that.. Thats why G makes that laugh for him self whenasked about sightings of her, because he knows, and he finds it funny how convinsed people can be of something, and he knows they are wrong. I think that also gives him confident to keep lying..Someone will always believe them...

russiandoll wrote:I too try to avoid premeditation, because it leads down a very nasty road.
What I can't fit into the accidental death theory is the marketing, branding, the fund and the 5 year long lie about an abduction.
Why they didnt just keep quiet and let the dust settle and it all fizzle out of the public eye is beyond me. They invite ongoing speculation and analysis.

Maybe their original strategy was simply to start a missing child campaign so to avoid being held accountable for accidental death/neglect. But then they were carried away by the unexpected tide of publicity, having to lie more and more to cover up the holes appearing in their ever evolving version of events. Also rubbing shoulders with celebrities and appearing in front of cameras can be a powerful drug, especially for those with narcissistic tendencies. Plus the MONEY

Sorry, the 'accident, cover-up and snowball effect' just does not work for me. Far too much was in place far too quickly, imo.
The 'Look' campaign, emphasis on the (non-existent?) coloboma, the 'Find Maddie Fund' - the lie that by 11 pm that night, reports were emerging of PT police 'doing nothing'. I don't believe the idea for the campaign came to Gerry in an instant in church, I think it'd been worked out long before then. Most telling for me was Gerry' comment 'I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleines abduction long-term' (mind boggling).
I err towards pre-meditation also because of the personalities involved. Gerry is a control freak and we've seen his reactions to unexpected events - the dogs searching the new villa and the hire car were a real curve-ball, and knocked him for six. Remember the description of him sobbing on the floor of the police station "We're finished, our lives are over"? I don't believe he'dve held it together with an accidental death. Far more likely to cope better with pre-meditation, just my opinion...
I know it sounds harsh, but people do plan and execute such things. I get the feeling the bond was weak with Madeleine. I even get the impression the McCanns wanted two children only. Maddie was definitely, to some degree a 'separate entity'. I think it was a Dr Martin Roberts analysis where K+G were asked about memories of Madeleine, the reply from G was 'You know, just her in the playroom, playing with her, with her, with... the twins'. Why not 'Her brother and sister' or 'Her siblings'. He was strongly resisting saying something. Why. And what was it?
The sheer speed at which the Fund was set up, and the fact they were concentrating on that as opposed to searching for their daughter... It all points firmly away from accident, imo (and I don't WANT to believe they were cold-blooded enough to plan it all) - I just don't see evidence of 'on the hoof' reactionary actions. I see a plan that (more or less) ran properly... Were the other Tapas in on it? I'm not so sure on that one...

rainbow-fairy wrote:Sorry, the 'accident, cover-up and snowball effect' just does not work for me. Far too much was in place far too quickly, imo.
The 'Look' campaign, emphasis on the (non-existent?) coloboma, the 'Find Maddie Fund' - the lie that by 11 pm that night, reports were emerging of PT police 'doing nothing'. I don't believe the idea for the campaign came to Gerry in an instant in church, I think it'd been worked out long before then. Most telling for me was Gerry' comment 'I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleines abduction long-term' (mind boggling).
I err towards pre-meditation also because of the personalities involved. Gerry is a control freak and we've seen his reactions to unexpected events - the dogs searching the new villa and the hire car were a real curve-ball, and knocked him for six. Remember the description of him sobbing on the floor of the police station "We're finished, our lives are over"? I don't believe he'dve held it together with an accidental death. Far more likely to cope better with pre-meditation, just my opinion...
I know it sounds harsh, but people do plan and execute such things. I get the feeling the bond was weak with Madeleine. I even get the impression the McCanns wanted two children only. Maddie was definitely, to some degree a 'separate entity'. I think it was a Dr Martin Roberts analysis where K+G were asked about memories of Madeleine, the reply from G was 'You know, just her in the playroom, playing with her, with her, with... the twins'. Why not 'Her brother and sister' or 'Her siblings'. He was strongly resisting saying something. Why. And what was it?
The sheer speed at which the Fund was set up, and the fact they were concentrating on that as opposed to searching for their daughter... It all points firmly away from accident, imo (and I don't WANT to believe they were cold-blooded enough to plan it all) - I just don't see evidence of 'on the hoof' reactionary actions. I see a plan that (more or less) ran properly... Were the other Tapas in on it? I'm not so sure on that one...

I do not believe that...I think all those things could easily apply for an accidential death with a snowball effect..All the things they've said and done I also believe can be related to accidential death.. I dont think she was a hated kid and that they wanted two children only.. I do believe they feel som guilt towards the twins for "losing" their sister, and believe thats why G is so resisting when speaking about it all...
I don't see strong evidence for a pre plan like you are discribing, and I've been down that round, but at one point turned around since the road looked like a dead end to me....

Moa wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Sorry, the 'accident, cover-up and snowball effect' just does not work for me. Far too much was in place far too quickly, imo.
The 'Look' campaign, emphasis on the (non-existent?) coloboma, the 'Find Maddie Fund' - the lie that by 11 pm that night, reports were emerging of PT police 'doing nothing'. I don't believe the idea for the campaign came to Gerry in an instant in church, I think it'd been worked out long before then. Most telling for me was Gerry' comment 'I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleines abduction long-term' (mind boggling).
I err towards pre-meditation also because of the personalities involved. Gerry is a control freak and we've seen his reactions to unexpected events - the dogs searching the new villa and the hire car were a real curve-ball, and knocked him for six. Remember the description of him sobbing on the floor of the police station "We're finished, our lives are over"? I don't believe he'dve held it together with an accidental death. Far more likely to cope better with pre-meditation, just my opinion...
I know it sounds harsh, but people do plan and execute such things. I get the feeling the bond was weak with Madeleine. I even get the impression the McCanns wanted two children only. Maddie was definitely, to some degree a 'separate entity'. I think it was a Dr Martin Roberts analysis where K+G were asked about memories of Madeleine, the reply from G was 'You know, just her in the playroom, playing with her, with her, with... the twins'. Why not 'Her brother and sister' or 'Her siblings'. He was strongly resisting saying something. Why. And what was it?
The sheer speed at which the Fund was set up, and the fact they were concentrating on that as opposed to searching for their daughter... It all points firmly away from accident, imo (and I don't WANT to believe they were cold-blooded enough to plan it all) - I just don't see evidence of 'on the hoof' reactionary actions. I see a plan that (more or less) ran properly... Were the other Tapas in on it? I'm not so sure on that one...

I do not believe that...I think all those things could easily apply for an accidental death with a snowball effect..All the things they've said and done I also believe can be related to accidental death.. I dont think she was a hated kid and that they wanted two children only.. I do believe they feel som guilt towards the twins for "losing" their sister, and believe thats why G is so resisting when speaking about it all...
I don't see strong evidence for a pre plan like you are discribing, and I've been down that round, but at one point turned around since the road looked like a dead end to me....

We don't have to agree Moa! We'd never learn if everyone agreed!
I have been down the accident road - maybe not a dead end so much as a cul-de-sac - and it raises more questions than it answers.
Pre-planned is pretty similar. It may sound bizarre but there is a third option (and possibly most likely); a bit of both. Planned AND accident - it is certainly possible. If not 'planned' per se, something that had been considered as a possible happening. Wasn't it David Payne (please someone correct me if I'm wrong) who said along the lines of "We were all waiting for something to happen, but never in our wildest dreams think it would be that"?!? What an odd thing to say...

I have no problem with you disagreeing Moa. However, I do take exception to being misquoted - where did I state or infer Madeleine was a 'hated kid'? I said something very different.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Moa wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Sorry, the 'accident, cover-up and snowball effect' just does not work for me. Far too much was in place far too quickly, imo.
The 'Look' campaign, emphasis on the (non-existent?) coloboma, the 'Find Maddie Fund' - the lie that by 11 pm that night, reports were emerging of PT police 'doing nothing'. I don't believe the idea for the campaign came to Gerry in an instant in church, I think it'd been worked out long before then. Most telling for me was Gerry' comment 'I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleines abduction long-term' (mind boggling).
I err towards pre-meditation also because of the personalities involved. Gerry is a control freak and we've seen his reactions to unexpected events - the dogs searching the new villa and the hire car were a real curve-ball, and knocked him for six. Remember the description of him sobbing on the floor of the police station "We're finished, our lives are over"? I don't believe he'dve held it together with an accidental death. Far more likely to cope better with pre-meditation, just my opinion...
I know it sounds harsh, but people do plan and execute such things. I get the feeling the bond was weak with Madeleine. I even get the impression the McCanns wanted two children only. Maddie was definitely, to some degree a 'separate entity'. I think it was a Dr Martin Roberts analysis where K+G were asked about memories of Madeleine, the reply from G was 'You know, just her in the playroom, playing with her, with her, with... the twins'. Why not 'Her brother and sister' or 'Her siblings'. He was strongly resisting saying something. Why. And what was it?
The sheer speed at which the Fund was set up, and the fact they were concentrating on that as opposed to searching for their daughter... It all points firmly away from accident, imo (and I don't WANT to believe they were cold-blooded enough to plan it all) - I just don't see evidence of 'on the hoof' reactionary actions. I see a plan that (more or less) ran properly... Were the other Tapas in on it? I'm not so sure on that one...

I do not believe that...I think all those things could easily apply for an accidental death with a snowball effect..All the things they've said and done I also believe can be related to accidental death.. I dont think she was a hated kid and that they wanted two children only.. I do believe they feel som guilt towards the twins for "losing" their sister, and believe thats why G is so resisting when speaking about it all...
I don't see strong evidence for a pre plan like you are discribing, and I've been down that round, but at one point turned around since the road looked like a dead end to me....

We don't have to agree Moa! We'd never learn if everyone agreed!
I have been down the accident road - maybe not a dead end so much as a cul-de-sac - and it raises more questions than it answers.
Pre-planned is pretty similar. It may sound bizarre but there is a third option (and possibly most likely); a bit of both. Planned AND accident - it is certainly possible. If not 'planned' per se, something that had been considered as a possible happening. Wasn't it David Payne (please someone correct me if I'm wrong) who said along the lines of "We were all waiting for something to happen, but never in our wildest dreams think it would be that"?!? What an odd thing to say...

I have no problem with you disagreeing Moa. However, I do take exception to being misquoted - where did I state or infer Madeleine was a 'hated kid'? I said something very different.

.

Sorry, you did not say hate ! That was my word, but either you love, hate or feel nothing, and you really have to hate or dislike a child a lot to pre plann a death or whatever..I don't think thats she was disliked or unwanted in any way..I think the love they had for her is what's enabling them to keep going, they knew they loved her and that it was an accident, and they have plenty of good reasons to keep their lie alive..and with that in their minds, they feel less guilty for fooling the world, and can justify everything they do with that..IMO ..

And yes wouldnt this forum be very uninteresting if we all had the same eyes And way of thinking

Moa wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Moa wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Sorry, the 'accident, cover-up and snowball effect' just does not work for me. Far too much was in place far too quickly, imo.
The 'Look' campaign, emphasis on the (non-existent?) coloboma, the 'Find Maddie Fund' - the lie that by 11 pm that night, reports were emerging of PT police 'doing nothing'. I don't believe the idea for the campaign came to Gerry in an instant in church, I think it'd been worked out long before then. Most telling for me was Gerry' comment 'I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleines abduction long-term' (mind boggling).
I err towards pre-meditation also because of the personalities involved. Gerry is a control freak and we've seen his reactions to unexpected events - the dogs searching the new villa and the hire car were a real curve-ball, and knocked him for six. Remember the description of him sobbing on the floor of the police station "We're finished, our lives are over"? I don't believe he'dve held it together with an accidental death. Far more likely to cope better with pre-meditation, just my opinion...
I know it sounds harsh, but people do plan and execute such things. I get the feeling the bond was weak with Madeleine. I even get the impression the McCanns wanted two children only. Maddie was definitely, to some degree a 'separate entity'. I think it was a Dr Martin Roberts analysis where K+G were asked about memories of Madeleine, the reply from G was 'You know, just her in the playroom, playing with her, with her, with... the twins'. Why not 'Her brother and sister' or 'Her siblings'. He was strongly resisting saying something. Why. And what was it?
The sheer speed at which the Fund was set up, and the fact they were concentrating on that as opposed to searching for their daughter... It all points firmly away from accident, imo (and I don't WANT to believe they were cold-blooded enough to plan it all) - I just don't see evidence of 'on the hoof' reactionary actions. I see a plan that (more or less) ran properly... Were the other Tapas in on it? I'm not so sure on that one...

I do not believe that...I think all those things could easily apply for an accidental death with a snowball effect..All the things they've said and done I also believe can be related to accidental death.. I don't think she was a hated kid and that they wanted two children only.. I do believe they feel som guilt towards the twins for "losing" their sister, and believe thats why G is so resisting when speaking about it all...
I don't see strong evidence for a pre plan like you are discribing, and I've been down that round, but at one point turned around since the road looked like a dead end to me....

We don't have to agree Moa! We'd never learn if everyone agreed!
I have been down the accident road - maybe not a dead end so much as a cul-de-sac - and it raises more questions than it answers.
Pre-planned is pretty similar. It may sound bizarre but there is a third option (and possibly most likely); a bit of both. Planned AND accident - it is certainly possible. If not 'planned' per se, something that had been considered as a possible happening. Wasn't it David Payne (please someone correct me if I'm wrong) who said along the lines of "We were all waiting for something to happen, but never in our wildest dreams think it would be that"?!? What an odd thing to say...

I have no problem with you disagreeing Moa. However, I do take exception to being misquoted - where did I state or infer Madeleine was a 'hated kid'? I said something very different.

.

Sorry, you did not say hate ! That was my word, but either you love, hate or feel nothing, and you really have to hate or dislike a child a lot to pre plann a death or whatever..I don't think thats she was disliked or unwanted in any way..I think the love they had for her is what's enabling them to keep going, they knew they loved her and that it was an accident, and they have plenty of good reasons to keep their lie alive..and with that in their minds, they feel less guilty for fooling the world, and can justify everything they do with that..IMO ..

And yes wouldnt this forum be very uninteresting if we all had the same eyes And way of thinking [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes it would Moa and I'm afraid I've got to disagree with you again
I think you seem very sweet and maybe see the best in everyone. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I don't believe love of Madeleine or even love of her memory is what keeps K+G going. I believe it to be no more, no less than keeping their sorry asses out of jail. If they really, really loved her and it truly was an accident (and I have grave doubts about that, too), then they wouldve 'fessed up, took any punishment (if it was an accident, its unlikely there would be any, surely?). Instead, they've made up a phony abduction tale, made money off the back of her, perverted her memory with the descriptions in the book and lied about her appearance (coloboma or fleck?) IMO, truly loving parents would do the opposite of what they have. They've actually shown a breathtaking disregard for their child. If we allow the abduction theory as scripted by them, they repeatedly left her and S/A alone, in a strange dark apartment, not once, not twice but three times then, the cherry on the cake - did it again after she allegedly TOLD THEM SHE CRIED FOR THEM! Actions of loving parents? Sorry, not in my world. Cold, heartless and selfish and not fit to be in charge of a goldfish, let alone children.

rainbow-fairy wrote:Sorry, the 'accident, cover-up and snowball effect' just does not work for me. Far too much was in place far too quickly, imo.
The 'Look' campaign, emphasis on the (non-existent?) coloboma, the 'Find Maddie Fund' - the lie that by 11 pm that night, reports were emerging of PT police 'doing nothing'. I don't believe the idea for the campaign came to Gerry in an instant in church, I think it'd been worked out long before then. Most telling for me was Gerry' comment 'I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleines abduction long-term' (mind boggling).
I err towards pre-meditation also because of the personalities involved. Gerry is a control freak and we've seen his reactions to unexpected events - the dogs searching the new villa and the hire car were a real curve-ball, and knocked him for six. Remember the description of him sobbing on the floor of the police station "We're finished, our lives are over"? I don't believe he'dve held it together with an accidental death. Far more likely to cope better with pre-meditation, just my opinion...
I know it sounds harsh, but people do plan and execute such things. I get the feeling the bond was weak with Madeleine. I even get the impression the McCanns wanted two children only. Maddie was definitely, to some degree a 'separate entity'. I think it was a Dr Martin Roberts analysis where K+G were asked about memories of Madeleine, the reply from G was 'You know, just her in the playroom, playing with her, with her, with... the twins'. Why not 'Her brother and sister' or 'Her siblings'. He was strongly resisting saying something. Why. And what was it?
The sheer speed at which the Fund was set up, and the fact they were concentrating on that as opposed to searching for their daughter... It all points firmly away from accident, imo (and I don't WANT to believe they were cold-blooded enough to plan it all) - I just don't see evidence of 'on the hoof' reactionary actions. I see a plan that (more or less) ran properly... Were the other Tapas in on it? I'm not so sure on that one...

Excellent post, RF. IMO I have almost always believed that it was premeditated, it happened on 28/29 April before 4am, that Gerry or Dave were the perpetrators who planned it months in advance, the rest of the tapas men were at least witnesses possibly participators, there was a substitute child called "Madalene" who attended the creche and Gerry forged her father's and her friend's fathers signatures, witnesses were bribed to lie in their statements and the abduction was faked and designed to look unplanned. Kate was shocked and angry and tried to comfort Maddie (hence the cadaver on her) when she found out but Gerry belted her into silence and compliance (hence the bruises we have observed on her arms and face which probably occurred on the Sunday but were still visible in the first interviews). Gerry persuaded Kate to trust him as they were going to be rich and famous with the fund (which was simply a copy of other missing child cases where funds had been set up). Kate valued money more than Maddie, so has gone along with Gerry ever since. Gerry made sure that there was no cadaver on him so has virtually set Kate up to take the fall. IMO the PJ interviewed Kate first in September 2007 as they expected her to say, "No, it wasn't me, it was Gerry." This Donegal holiday IMO it supposed to give the impression that they are a large and close family and to attract more money to the fund from the Irish.I have never believed that if the McCanns were as poor as we have been led to believe in April/May 2007, how could they afford two holidays (Donegal and Praia du Luz) so close together? IMO all Donegal photos have been photoshopped. What does the "real Maddie" look like anyway? I haven't got a clue myself.

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:To avoid endless posts of the same photographs:

Thanks to Moa and Look4Maddy:

Avatar: absolutely not Maddie, teeth alone prove that. No gaps except one in the front.

Ice cream photograph, when it's full size - (thank you L4M) high resolution, it only strengthens my opinion:
1. non participation in action.
2. with this high resolution I can see a couple of 'fold' lines under Maddie's left ear which have no business being there, this would make sense if the neck didn't belong to the face and the original face was bent forwards. Which would make sense with eating ice-cream. The ice cream she's holding should have collapsed at the point, impossible to hold it like that for even a second.
3. with the twins, definitely Maddie. I expect someone grinned at her just like that and she imitated it.
4. pale blue pyjamas, Maddie, coloboma pasted in close to 6 o'clock
5 . not at all sure about this one, may well be face pasted on, reason is the rather knuckled hand holding the scarf, looks too old.
coloboma shopped in at 7 o'clock. Face heavily bleached out, no eye bags. Probably Maddie.

And to avoid that we should take your oppinion as the truth then ? After all this is just your oppinions Tigger... If thats what you meant about avoid endless post about the pictures? Or did you mean not having the pictures in the post.. I might have misunderstood you

Exactly that Moa, to avoid making the topic very long with repeats of pictures. I just quickly listed my take on them. L4M does post very high resolution pictures - I was pointing out what else I could see.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Maddie's hands, but it is funny that in both the rock photo and the scarf photo her hand looks too 'old' . Toddlers have plump little hands, not with big knuckles.
One reason I doubt the Donegal pictures is that they were available so soon, nothing about the story connected seems to be true - the 29 to 47 members at the reunion - the weather,the actual close ties, the fact that Kate herself states in the bewk that it was their first visit and most of all, because the relative proportions of the children are wrong. Maddie is almost the same size as Sean - so if it was a smallish 3 yr old, and the poster photo is of a small 'compact' girl - I'm just wondering if that girl was the sub.
Although someone spotted Amelie's jacket hanging in 5a on one photo, I've never seen that pretty dress that 'Maddie' wears there in any other snap. Neither has Kate mentioned this dress.

Than im sorry for taking it the wrong way at first thought ..Always having the defending clows out lol !

I do find things odd, there are pictures im finding odd, like the make up pic, but I truly do not believe that they manipulated pictures years back..I see no reason for doing so..I believe the PDL pictures could have been tampered with..

On the other side, I do find it most odd that K said in the cowell? interview that they never made a big thing out of the bearly visible FLECK in her eye,and that they also now where sure it was not colomba!! When their entire campaign was based on exacly that FLECK. Why ? Maybe it is true and they just at the time, to gain publicity, over dramatised that fleck? Or are they lying about the fleck, and it never was there? If that is the case,. I guess a lot of people who has met Madeleine would react on that if she acually didnt have it..

So many answers to manipulated pictures, involves again a lot of people in the knowing.And I do not believe that all those people , not one would say
something?

I know the truth hasn't been told in this case, I strongly believe K+G knows what happened.. But I do find it hard to truly find a good reason for manipulating all those pictures, and lie about the fleck in her eye, other than making the fleck into a colomba, as a good marketing ploy...That also means IMO they knew she was already "gone", so if the information going out in the public wasnt accurate it didnt matter, because she was nowhere to be found anyway..Can also explain why they gave the wrong hight, old picture so on.. Maybe thats why it took so long to publish the "last" photo, because that would be the hardest one to look at if she accidently died...Maybe thats why they chose a less prettier,younger picture of her the first weeks ?

I don't know, there are many things pointing in many direction, most direction just stops at one point for my part,it gets to complicated.. I believe in a less complicated scenario.. I do not believe it was preplanned, unsure about the sub, that could be if she died earlier in the vacation..But im not leaning on that theory either...

I believe she died , by accident, on that holliday. How, when and where, is what im hoping to one day get the answers to....

Moa, if they put a coloboma in one photograph, then they had to do it in all the ones they published. They did not need to do this years in advance as you seem to imply.
As for the 'less prettier' picture. Most people like that one the best, it was a masterstroke. Now - it's in the PJ files: this picture was ready on the night she disappeared. About 30 copies were printed on quality paper.
This proves: that the coloboma had to have been added at an earlier date. It's rather too much to expect Gerry or Kate to do this whilst they were so busy deleting calls from their mobiles, phoning the family to say nothing was being done and writing and re-writing timelines.
This simply means premeditation.
Maddie wasn't that well known outside her family and the family played along with everything else.
If you read the whole of the 'substitute child' topic, you may get a better idea why.
I can't find the post of the professional who analysed the Everton photo. I doubt whether you'd believe her in any case. Your avatar cannot be Maddie on the evidence of the teeth alone and I gather you don't believe that either.

tigger wrote:

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:To avoid endless posts of the same photographs:

Thanks to Moa and Look4Maddy:

Avatar: absolutely not Maddie, teeth alone prove that. No gaps except one in the front.

Ice cream photograph, when it's full size - (thank you L4M) high resolution, it only strengthens my opinion:
1. non participation in action.
2. with this high resolution I can see a couple of 'fold' lines under Maddie's left ear which have no business being there, this would make sense if the neck didn't belong to the face and the original face was bent forwards. Which would make sense with eating ice-cream. The ice cream she's holding should have collapsed at the point, impossible to hold it like that for even a second.
3. with the twins, definitely Maddie. I expect someone grinned at her just like that and she imitated it.
4. pale blue pyjamas, Maddie, coloboma pasted in close to 6 o'clock
5 . not at all sure about this one, may well be face pasted on, reason is the rather knuckled hand holding the scarf, looks too old.
coloboma shopped in at 7 o'clock. Face heavily bleached out, no eye bags. Probably Maddie.

And to avoid that we should take your oppinion as the truth then ? After all this is just your oppinions Tigger... If thats what you meant about avoid endless post about the pictures? Or did you mean not having the pictures in the post.. I might have misunderstood you [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Exactly that Moa, to avoid making the topic very long with repeats of pictures. I just quickly listed my take on them. L4M does post very high resolution pictures - I was pointing out what else I could see.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Maddie's hands, but it is funny that in both the rock photo and the scarf photo her hand looks too 'old' . Toddlers have plump little hands, not with big knuckles.
One reason I doubt the Donegal pictures is that they were available so soon, nothing about the story connected seems to be true - the 29 to 47 members at the reunion - the weather,the actual close ties, the fact that Kate herself states in the bewk that it was their first visit and most of all, because the relative proportions of the children are wrong. Maddie is almost the same size as Sean - so if it was a smallish 3 yr old, and the poster photo is of a small 'compact' girl - I'm just wondering if that girl was the sub.
Although someone spotted Amelie's jacket hanging in 5a on one photo, I've never seen that pretty dress that 'Maddie' wears there in any other snap. Neither has Kate mentioned this dress.

Than im sorry for taking it the wrong way at first thought [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] ..Always having the defending clows out lol ! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I do find things odd, there are pictures im finding odd, like the make up pic, but I truly do not believe that they manipulated pictures years back..I see no reason for doing so..I believe the PDL pictures could have been tampered with..

On the other side, I do find it most odd that K said in the cowell? interview that they never made a big thing out of the bearly visible FLECK in her eye,and that they also now where sure it was not colomba!! When their entire campaign was based on exacly that FLECK. Why ? Maybe it is true and they just at the time, to gain publicity, over dramatised that fleck? Or are they lying about the fleck, and it never was there? If that is the case,. I guess a lot of people who has met Madeleine would react on that if she acually didnt have it..

So many answers to manipulated pictures, involves again a lot of people in the knowing.And I do not believe that all those people , not one would say
something?

I know the truth hasn't been told in this case, I strongly believe K+G knows what happened.. But I do find it hard to truly find a good reason for manipulating all those pictures, and lie about the fleck in her eye, other than making the fleck into a colomba, as a good marketing ploy...That also means IMO they knew she was already "gone", so if the information going out in the public wasnt accurate it didnt matter, because she was nowhere to be found anyway..Can also explain why they gave the wrong hight, old picture so on.. Maybe thats why it took so long to publish the "last" photo, because that would be the hardest one to look at if she accidently died...Maybe thats why they chose a less prettier,younger picture of her the first weeks ?

I don't know, there are many things pointing in many direction, most direction just stops at one point for my part,it gets to complicated.. I believe in a less complicated scenario.. I do not believe it was preplanned, unsure about the sub, that could be if she died earlier in the vacation..But im not leaning on that theory either...

I believe she died , by accident, on that holliday. How, when and where, is what im hoping to one day get the answers to....

Moa, if they put a coloboma in one photograph, then they had to do it in all the ones they published. They did not need to do this years in advance as you seem to imply.
As for the 'less prettier' picture. Most people like that one the best, it was a masterstroke. Now - it's in the PJ files: this picture was ready on the night she disappeared. About 30 copies were printed on quality paper.
This proves: that the coloboma had to have been added at an earlier date. It's rather too much to expect Gerry or Kate to do this whilst they were so busy deleting calls from their mobiles, phoning the family to say nothing was being done and writing and re-writing timelines.
This simply means premeditation.
Maddie wasn't that well known outside her family and the family played along with everything else.
If you read the whole of the 'substitute child' topic, you may get a better idea why.
I can't find the post of the professional who analysed the Everton photo. I doubt whether you'd believe her in any case. Your avatar cannot be Maddie on the evidence of the teeth alone and I gather you don't believe that either.

Now, what is that saying? The one, being an equestrienne, I'm very familiar with?
Oh yes. 'You can lead a horse to water, but you sure as hell can't make it drink'

We can have different opinions without beeing rude, right?

Tigger ; why would you say I probably wont believe the analyzes of the Eventon shirt? I find that rude and very judging...I read everything with an open mind !

And I did not implay that they alterede the comlomba years ago, I simply didnt find a good enough reason to alter all the photographs beeing discussed, her hands etc.. If the colomba is a lie as they state them self, than its obviouse the eye has been altered in a lot of photos as atleast I was trying to say.. (sorry as english is not my first language) That don't mean it ws pre planned. If she died earlier that holliday they would have time to do it, and lot of the pictures wherent reliced before weeks later, wich would have given them time to enhance the fleck in her eye...

I just find it hard to believe that so many peopel are involved, and know, and not one person steps up and say something..Not everyone in the knowing would be close to them imo..

Rainbow-Fairy - I defently think you have some good points, and yes I do agree your point of view could be just as true as my point of view..
The question is did they do it ( leave the kids alone ) with bad intensions? Some people believe they werent left alone at all, but I believe they where , and that they wasn't cheked up on as often as they say.

I just don't think they went to that holliday with the goal to get rid(?) of Madeleine....I guess that is my starting point..I have read the whole tread about sub, Stellas work, kikorans work, well I think I read and rearead everything on this forum to be true..I spend atleast 12 hours on my computer everyday, way to many, 8 of those are at work if thats an good excuse

But as said before, on each and every road I get to and dead end, and it just gets to complicated and to many people involved in the story. I believe the truth is realy simple, and everything just took of from there. I think it even went bigger then they thought it would themself, wich has putten them in this situation today where they still have to lie publicy.

AS to Estelles Theory, well I don't believe D + G preplanned to do anything like you describe, and beating Kate and so on..

There can be so many reasons for people acting the way they do..

I don't understand why that picture (front cover of the book) has been so "popular" I think that is one of the less prettiest pictures there is of her..

I still believe my avatar not to be Kate atleast, I cant say for sure it is Madeleine, but its deffently not Kate imo !

If you find that link re everton analyze any day Tigger I would love to read it..

There has also been an expert analyzing the last pool photo without finding anything wrong with it.. I guess as humans we would first of all believe more in the things leaning to our own believes, and thats why you Tigger don't believe the experts opinion on that pool photo..And why you think I wont believe the analyze about the everton shirt, IMO :) Truth is if the analyzes is good and backed up with facts, why would I not believe it?

What I found most weird about the pictures is that on the everton picture she do look older than on the PDL pictures, more like a 5 / 6 year old than a nearly 4 year old.. She looks different, older, higher..

All tough there are many good points and opinions on here, I just can't get my self to truly believe it was pre planned before their holiday...

Im still sticking with an accident on the holliday snow ball effect..As in my eyes most evidence point in that direction.. I do always try to see the best in people, but I have also felt and seen the evil , and im not saying its impossible that k +G are in the last category, its just not my believe.. Even tough they neglected their children those nights in PDL..And defently shouldnt have left them alone.. The fact that they did could also mean they lack the ability to make good desicions..Doctors or not, doctors do bad desitions too...I do not have to mean they didn't love or like their kids..

Well im off the computer, as summer has come 3 months earlier to my home land :D we usually have snow at this time, but know I can acually lay in my bikini and get meself som tanning

Peace and Love ppl

Dear Moa,

Hope your sunbathing was nice so early in the year.

Just one quote from you:
I still believe my avatar not to be Kate atleast, I cant say for sure it is Madeleine, but its deffently not Kate imo !
unquote

You see, I don't really care whether your avatar is Marilyn Monroe or whoever, the point is that it can't be Maddie.
Because the teeth prove that. Any dentist will tell you that separated little baby teeth like Maddie shows in many photographs can turn into the close-fitting teeth with just the one gap in the middle - (as can be seen in the 'last' photograph which incidentally was checked by an expert and found to have been photoshopped - although Maddie may not have been retouched, other areas are and Maddie looks a little young for four years old there - basically you may have seen another 'expert' opinion. By the way, Gerry's sunglasses reflect the poolside vertically - another mystery)

I'm just picking on this particular part of your answer because it may explain why I don't want to spend more time explaining and finding references.
I explained about the coloboma and the significance of the poster photo in that respect. You're entitled to ignore that, but I'm entitled to stop explaining.
No hard feelings, I'll watch your posts with interest.

Correction: baby teeth like Maddie shows in many photographs cannot turn into the close-fitting teeth with just the one gap in the middle