McCanns Easter break Donegal 2007

Like Rainbow Fairy and Russiandoll I have often wondered if Madeleine was ever in PDL.

The waitress at the Millennium on 28th supposes she was there but only recalls the twins. At 5a all beds were unmade except for Madeleine's on Wed morning.

Kate doesn't seem so convincing either. On Tuesday she got up from her perfectly made up bed to sleep with her parents and tell them that Amelie was crying. I'm not falling for the myth that the twins lay down in their little travel cots like angels and waited for their parents to rouse them. Any two year old that had woken up would be more than able to swing their leg over the side of the cot and go find their own parent.

On Thursday morning Madeleine asked why the parents didn't come when Sean and she were crying. Why didn't she go get them like she did the previous night? Kate mentions that she wondered if she cried when she was "getting" her bath? She says this on camera because she's trying to be as truthful as possible. But it doesn't really ring true to the fairytale about the famous last night with the stories and the engagement ring etc etc. Kate chants the same mantra time after time. It was very safe to neglect he children between 8 and 12 every night, they'd be perfectly fine and never cry. The only danger would be from the bad abductor.

Then dutiful Kate washes out the "stain" from the pyjama top that she assumes was a tea stain because Madeleine would have the odd little cup occasionally. No mention of making the little cup or Madeleine enjoying it or spilling it. If I found a stain on a 3 year old's top I'd be racking my brains to remember what put it here and if not I'd be asking the child quickly. What if it was poison?

On Thursday night Kate checks at 10 O Clock and Madeleine is not in her bed. So she decides Madeleine had woken and "gone through" to their bedroom. Here we're supposed to buy that Madeleine would have found the bed empty but just hopped in and snuggled up by herself and awaited her parent's return. While of course keeping a watchful eye on the twins and no doubt made her bed up perfectly first.

The tapas alibi was all set from Sunday 29th. What I just can't work out is how they enlisted the help of the T7. Anything else like the substitute and a freezer involves even more personalities. What was the hold they had over the others that they'd risk losing careers, family and prison for? I've always had the belief that they settled for plan B and something went very wrong for them with plan A. But I suppose even one hour after an unreported death of a minor would be past the point of no return for all of them.

Yes Molly, nice to see you!
Anyway, the only two conversations recorded between the parents and Maddie in PdL are on the morning and in the evening of the 3rd.
That's it, nothing else - unless you count the bit where Maddie jumped into the swimming pool and told Kate to come in.

The famous conversation about crying and in the evening allegedly she told Kate she had had the best day ever. Which anyone who has ever had any kind of relationship with a toddler will know to be hogwash.

These two conversations are to prove she was alive both that morning and that night.

I think the main reason we know so little about Maddie is that her parents didn't either. They just don't seem to have been interested during her little life - otherwise we'd have had a book about Maddie and we'd know exactly how she talked, played and what she liked to eat.
We do however, know all these things about Kate - through the bewk - too bad, because all we're interested in is Maddie.

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

But the teeth can go from this to more gaps, so if this is an earlier picture, the teeths could have slipt apparter as she grows? I think the teeths on this one looks similar to the other pictures I posted a few pages back..

As for the sunglasses to Jerry, Thats sortet out on the pamalam site, its because of the glasses it is vertical. If they photoshopped it I dont think they would been so idiotic to do it verticaly.. According to pamalam its supposed to be that way according to an expert..

Lets just agree to disagree :)

And yes thank you the sun bath was very welcoming :)

So between the time your avatar photograph was taken and the 'last photograph' in PdL her little jaw grew so quickly that all her teeth suddenly had spaces in between?
Apart from the fact that your avatar actually looks older than Maddie does in PdL?

Thank you, I needed a good laugh.

Please don't react to this post, I won't reply.

A good laugh makes you live longer so you are welcome :)

Im not sure about the age, but I think she looks younger than atlest some of the PDL pictures, ( not the pool picture)
But if thats not M and its defently not K then who is it ? After all she does look like the girls on the other pictures..Except her teeth look more perfect..But I also think the teeth looks the same as many other pic of "her". What she does not look like is the famouse book front picture, where her teeths are spread everywhere compared to many others.. So who is the real one then ?

My first tought was that kids loses their first teeths, wich gives them gaps, but after re thinking, that ofcourse do not happen at the age of 3 or 4, but at the age 5-7 years.. So does that mean the teeths are the same from your first tooth and until they start falling out (milktooths) ? Im asking because im unsure, I have a girl at home, that just turned 3, and they do change a lot in that age, but can't say I see any changes in the teeth structure, as I do see in her brother, but thats because he already has lost 4 teeths.. Will try to look at older pictures, I got the girl when she was 2 so I can't say how they where before that..

maybe I just want my avatar to be M because she looks happy and normal on it...And maybe thats why I insist its not K, I truly don't believe it can be her...

Moa wrote:A good laugh makes you live longer so you are welcome :)

Im not sure about the age, but I think she looks younger than atlest some of the PDL pictures, ( not the pool picture)
But if thats not M and its defently not K then who is it ? After all she does look like the girls on the other pictures..Except her teeth look more perfect..But I also think the teeth looks the same as many other pic of "her". What she does not look like is the famouse book front picture, where her teeths are spread everywhere compared to many others.. So who is the real one then ?

My first tought was that kids loses their first teeths, wich gives them gaps, but after re thinking, that ofcourse do not happen at the age of 3 or 4, but at the age 5-7 years.. So does that mean the teeths are the same from your first tooth and until they start falling out (milktooths) ? Im asking because im unsure, I have a girl at home, that just turned 3, and they do change a lot in that age, but can't say I see any changes in the teeth structure, as I do see in her brother, but thats because he already has lost 4 teeths.. Will try to look at older pictures, I got the girl when she was 2 so I can't say how they where before that..

maybe I just want my avatar to be M because she looks happy and normal on it...And maybe thats why I insist its not K, I truly don't believe it can be her...

Why do you truly not believe it to be K?
The teeth, the gap, the mouth, cheeks - all identical. I'm with tigger on this one, 100%.
Sadly, wanting it to be Maddie because she looks happy doesn't make it so does it? Realistically most of the pics do NOT show a happy child.
If the book photo is Maddie (the photo that was released for the world to look for her) IS Maddie, then your avatar picture cannot be here. As you have conceded, baby teeth do not grow closer together, not as much would be needed to make those pictures the same person.
If your AVATAR is Maddie, then the book photo cannot be. Considering they released to the world, WHY would they do that?
The most pertinent question of all is this? Why are they releasing ANY photo's that are not of their daughter?

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Moa wrote:A good laugh makes you live longer so you are welcome :)

Im not sure about the age, but I think she looks younger than atlest some of the PDL pictures, ( not the pool picture)
But if thats not M and its defently not K then who is it ? After all she does look like the girls on the other pictures..Except her teeth look more perfect..But I also think the teeth looks the same as many other pic of "her". What she does not look like is the famouse book front picture, where her teeths are spread everywhere compared to many others.. So who is the real one then ?

My first tought was that kids loses their first teeths, wich gives them gaps, but after re thinking, that ofcourse do not happen at the age of 3 or 4, but at the age 5-7 years.. So does that mean the teeths are the same from your first tooth and until they start falling out (milktooths) ? Im asking because im unsure, I have a girl at home, that just turned 3, and they do change a lot in that age, but can't say I see any changes in the teeth structure, as I do see in her brother, but thats because he already has lost 4 teeths.. Will try to look at older pictures, I got the girl when she was 2 so I can't say how they where before that..

maybe I just want my avatar to be M because she looks happy and normal on it...And maybe thats why I insist its not K, I truly don't believe it can be her...

Why do you truly not believe it to be K?
The teeth, the gap, the mouth, cheeks - all identical. I'm with tigger on this one, 100%.
Sadly, wanting it to be Maddie because she looks happy doesn't make it so does it? Realistically most of the pics do NOT show a happy child.
If the book photo is Maddie (the photo that was released for the world to look for her) IS Maddie, then your avatar picture cannot be here. As you have conceded, baby teeth do not grow closer together, not as much would be needed to make those pictures the same person.
If your AVATAR is Maddie, then the book photo cannot be. Considering they released to the world, WHY would they do that?
The most pertinent question of all is this? Why are they releasing ANY photo's that are not of their daughter?

I know and I wonder the same.. I just think the girl is to pretty to be Kate, and thats it. And someone stated it was her cousins G and F next to her so then obviouse it can't be kate...

I wish we had a clearer picture than my avatar. If you click on the same picture at the pamalam site, the site comes up blank...All the other works fine, and so did this when I found it the first time...Coinsidence?

I think its interresting to look at all the pictures together on this site
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Particuallry the pumpkin picture, the face and smile looks very different to Madeleine... If she died by accident that could be a reason for releasing pictures thats not of her? Easier for them to look at, and it doesnt matter since shes not findable?

And the two big ones that shift at the bottom of the page, the book photo is in still, and above it is many pictures of her shifting, interesting for compering.

I dont know why they done what they done.. I mean they done lots of strange, weired, unlogical things...How can anyone sain explain ?

Moa I looked at the Pamalam pictures again and I'm almost certain that your icon picture was taken on the same day as these two others. Her teeth seem to be not as gappy because the pictures are all a little out of focus like they were taken on a camera phone or with a low shutter speed. If you look at her bangs in all three pictures, they look identical, so does the coloring of her hair from that particular camera. And Fiona, at least, seems to be in those pictures too.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I don't think that's Maddie at all, Tumbleweed, just because she's sitting on Gerry's back. It's only one picture, the bottom one is enlarged and 'flipped' - why I don't know.
The teeth are clearly closely spaced -probably the same girl as Moa's avatar, but not Maddie.
Children of that age tend to look alike when colouring and hairstyle are similar. Brigit Wilkins mentioned particularly about there being about 10 little blond girls of the same age at PdL.
I'm sorry, but why is it so important that these photographs have to be of Maddie? Maddie's teeth were very irregular and very spaced, even for a child that age, no way can the camera disguise that.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" Now you've brought it up, there is something that has always raised questionmarks. I believe the Homevideo we know of Madeleine (the first few pictures) are taken at the same time as the pictures you posted. Since you can see Fiona, her brother and Gerry on his knees, Madeleine trying to get on Gerry's back for a ponyride. So i believe these are taken the same night and time. What then makes me wonder is... the one were Madeleine holds a present for "Auntie Claire", its the same pyjama, (believed to be taken the next morning? or that same morning?) but her hair looks so much shorter and well the whole girl looks so different to me! Maybe it is just me, but it has always made me wonder! She doesnt look as happy, you can see her laughing and enjoying herself and her family in the video with Gerry and Fiona. Yet the one with the present she looks completely different and much "smaller????!!!" and even scared in my eyes. Really insecure if you could say so??

tumbleweed wrote:Moa I looked at the Pamalam pictures again and I'm almost certain that your icon picture was taken on the same day as these two others. Her teeth seem to be not as gappy because the pictures are all a little out of focus like they were taken on a camera phone or with a low shutter speed. If you look at her bangs in all three pictures, they look identical, so does the coloring of her hair from that particular camera. And Fiona, at least, seems to be in those pictures too.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

going across from left to right,the first pic and the 6th pic, Madeleines hair look longer than the other pics

tiny wrote:going across from left to right,the first pic and the 6th pic, Madeleines hair look longer than the other pics

Yes I know, I've always wondered, did she have a haircut on christmas eve? LOL Her hair looks longer when she's riding gerry's back then the one were she's holding up a present for "auntie Claire"

Look4Maddy wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" Now you've brought it up, there is something that has always raised questionmarks. I believe the Homevideo we know of Madeleine (the first few pictures) are taken at the same time as the pictures you posted. Since you can see Fiona, her brother and Gerry on his knees, Madeleine trying to get on Gerry's back for a ponyride. So i believe these are taken the same night and time. What then makes me wonder is... the one were Madeleine holds a present for "Auntie Claire", its the same pyjama, (believed to be taken the next morning? or that same morning?) but her hair looks so much shorter and well the whole girl looks so different to me! Maybe it is just me, but it has always made me wonder! She doesnt look as happy, you can see her laughing and enjoying herself and her family in the video with Gerry and Fiona. Yet the one with the present she looks completely different and much "smaller????!!!" and even scared in my eyes. Really insecure if you could say so??

tumbleweed wrote:Moa I looked at the Pamalam pictures again and I'm almost certain that your icon picture was taken on the same day as these two others. Her teeth seem to be not as gappy because the pictures are all a little out of focus like they were taken on a camera phone or with a low shutter speed. If you look at her bangs in all three pictures, they look identical, so does the coloring of her hair from that particular camera. And Fiona, at least, seems to be in those pictures too.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

There are some differences:

1. 'photogirl' looks healthier and happier, fleshier too in the face (double chin), than 'filmgirl';
2. photogirl is taller: just compare the length of the trouser legs;
3. idem: look at the shirt. Both girls wear it, but on filmgirl it ends at her waist. With Maddie it reaches down much lower;
4. Maddies hair is parted on the left; photogirls' on the right. Would this explain why the picture with GM in it is mirrored?

Filmgirl has the walls beneath the eyes which -I think- are typical of the real Maddie.

who do you think this other girl is? IMO the photos all show the same girl, her top and pants are riding up when she is on Gerrys back because she is sitting not standing.
And yes I believe that this little girl is Maddie McCann, with her father and cousins

russiandoll wrote:who do you think this other girl is? IMO the photos all show the same girl, her top and pants are riding up when she is on Gerrys back because she is sitting not standing.
And yes I believe that this little girl is Maddie McCann, with her father and cousins

IMO the second girl (holding the present) looks alot different, her hair seems alot shorter (bobline) and the face looks different to me.

Look4Maddy wrote:

russiandoll wrote:who do you think this other girl is? IMO the photos all show the same girl, her top and pants are riding up when she is on Gerrys back because she is sitting not standing.
And yes I believe that this little girl is Maddie McCann, with her father and cousins

IMO the second girl (holding the present) looks alot different, her hair seems alot shorter (bobline) and the face looks different to me.

I agree. She looks a lot different around the eyes too.

The hair on photographs 2, 5 and 9 looks again like a wig or hairpiece to me. Sorry, I keep going on about it, but you can clearly see the strange highlight and lowlights in bands. Whereas the girl on Gerry's back reminds me more of the one in the pumpkin costume and/or Moa's avatar.
The smile is very confident and open - this confidence rarely comes across in Maddie's photographs.

I may well be wrong of course, so don't hold it against me, still think the gaps in the teeth would be visible. Shame their video clips are so grainy.

If these pics were taken at the same time then pic 1 and pic 6 are not Madeleine as her hair is much longer than in pic 10

tigger wrote:I don't think that's Maddie at all, Tumbleweed, just because she's sitting on Gerry's back. It's only one picture, the bottom one is enlarged and 'flipped' - why I don't know.
The teeth are clearly closely spaced -probably the same girl as Moa's avatar, but not Maddie.
Children of that age tend to look alike when colouring and hairstyle are similar. Brigit Wilkins mentioned particularly about there being about 10 little blond girls of the same age at PdL.
I'm sorry, but why is it so important that these photographs have to be of Maddie? Maddie's teeth were very irregular and very spaced, even for a child that age, no way can the camera disguise that.

I don't know what to think, which is why I comment so rarely. I can't say anything for certain about any of this. But I do really strongly believe that the picture from Moa's icon is the same girl taken on the same day as the others posted. You can even see colors from Gregor's shirt in the icon that match what he's wearing in the Christmas pictures. As for who the child is, if it isn't Maddie, then I have no speculation to offer. I'd just often wondered about Moa's icon too bc I agree it does look so different from other pictures of her, just like a lot of the pictures do.

Her hair definitely looks longer in the pictures where she is with others and smiling. You can see it bunching up on her shoulders, whereas the pictures of her alone show her with a short bob. I know all of this speculation about her photos/appearance has to sound crazy to some, but I consider myself pretty sane, and I find so many inconsistencies like this while looking at so many of her pictures, even before I became aware of this forum or topics such as this. I can't even begin to make sense of it. I mean, unless she had a twin or something, I don't know...

tumbleweed wrote:Her hair definitely looks longer in the pictures where she is with others and smiling. You can see it bunching up on her shoulders, whereas the pictures of her alone show her with a short bob. I know all of this speculation about her photos/appearance has to sound crazy to some, but I consider myself pretty sane, and I find so many inconsistencies like this while looking at so many of her pictures, even before I became aware of this forum or topics such as this. I can't even begin to make sense of it. I mean, unless she had a twin or something, I don't know...

I agree about her hair tumbleweed, it is definately longer in some of those pictures. There are also photos and video footage where the twins are obviously getting older and Madeleine appears to look younger. All very strange!

Tigger, I mentioned in another post about hightlights. My grandaughter had exactly the same, even more evident after the past few days of sunshine, she has almost white bands appear in her hair overnight!

About the gappy teeth. I've seen it argued that as the jaw grows bigger the teeth will become more spaced out. In my experience with one of my children and one of my grandchildren, it happened completely the opposite. Both had very gappy teeth, but as back teeth came through and grew bigger, then the gaps started closing up. Teeth grow quicker than jawbones. But like you say, Madeleine's teeth became gappier as she grew!

The mouth looking very different ?

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

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

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

It was the Belfast Telegraph which first published the story that the McCanns and supposedly hordes of relatives were in Donegal in April 2007.

I wonder if good old Uncle Hughie has been able to join them again - he was there last time despite being dead!

I don't believe this latest story any more than I did the first one. Garbage!

This is the exclusive from the Donegal daily.......

MISSING MADDIE’S FAMILY MAKE HEARTBREAKING TRIP BACK TO DONEGAL


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

EXCLUSIVE: The family of Maddie McCann have made a poignant return to Donegal for the first time since their little girl went missing five years ago.[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Gerry and Kate McCann and their twins Sean and Amelie have been enjoying a family break in West Donegal

The family have rented a house in the Dungloe area and have been enjoying days out in the town.

Missing Maddie’s dad Gerry has many relations in the area whom he keeps in touch with.

His father John was born in the village of St Johnston but left Donegal in 1967 before Gerry was born.

Poignantly this is the first time the family has returned to Ireland since Maddy went missing while holidaying in Portugal in 2007.

Just weeks before she went missing, Maddie, 3, had enjoyed another trip to Donegal.

The McCann family had been visiting the area on holiday in April 2007 before stopping off at their family-owned pub in St Johnston.

A picture in the little village shows Maddie and family members enjoying an ice-cream outside People’s Bar which is still owned by Maddie’s grandmother Eileen McCann.

More than 40 family members had enjoyed the Easter trip.

Maddy and her parents had even attended Easter mass in Dungloe.

This week the couple were given a warm welcome back by friends and family.

One local woman, who asked not to be named, said she was delighted when she seen Gerry in Dungloe.

“I went over and said hello to him and asked how things were going.

“He said things were going as well as they could and they were enjoying their little break here.

“He actually asked me where was the best place to find a swimming pool locally to take his children for a swim.

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



Only one comment so far.

Not much to find about the journalist Greg Harkin. Apparently he went from award winning journalism (book stakeknife about IRA) to sloppy xenofobic reporting...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hadn't they been in Ireland to do the chat show with Ryan Tubridy on RTE.

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

The McCann's will tonight be interviewed by Ryan Tubridy on the Late Late Show, the main chat show In Ireland.


From the article in Donegal daily just posted.......

Poignantly this is the first time the family has returned to Ireland since Maddy went missing while holidaying in Portugal in 2007.

candyfloss wrote:Hadn't they been in Ireland to do the chat show with Ryan Tubridy on RTE.

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

The McCann's will tonight be interviewed by Ryan Tubridy on the Late Late Show, the main chat show In Ireland.


From the article in Donegal daily just posted.......

Poignantly this is the first time the family has returned to Ireland since Maddy went missing while holidaying in Portugal in 2007.

Excuse my language but it's all garbage, Candyfloss. It is my belief that this story has been planted for nefarious reasons [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Clarence Mitchell has been busy – churning out press releases to Irish media to get his clients back in the news. It must have been difficult for them lately with April Jones, Ben Needham search in Greece, and Catherine Gowring getting all the headlines.

The exact same story as in the Belgraph Telegraph (Jean’s post) is in the Irish Independent, the biggest selling paper in ROI. I think the Independent owns the Telegraph.

I get the online edition of the Independent emailed to me every day and on the home page is the heading top stories and the first one listed is McCanns make first trip to Donegal since…


Now why is this the first of their top stories?

I mean UK family visits relatives in Ireland. So what? OK their daughter (allegedly) vanished but that was over 5 years ago and in Portugal not Donegal.

And the article uses two pictures including one old photograph of Madeleine. How helpful for the search!

Both stories Independent/Telegraph and Donegal Daily feature a quote from an unnamed local person. Now why is the person not named? Why would the local have a problem being named making a friendly comment about the McCanns? Were the quotes made up? Journalists don’t do things like that, do they?

The Donegal Daily quotes the unnamed local as saying Gerry asked where the nearest swimming pool was, for his children. You would think Gerry would know this from his earlier visit in April 2007 when he had his three children with him or he would know about any pool from his ‘large number of relatives in the Dungloe area’. He has apparently has rented a cottage there for this break.

Not only is this quote rather suspect, the Donegal Daily also says this trip is the McCanns first trip to Ireland since Madeleine went missing – incorrect. They were in Ireland Summer 2011 promoting the book and appeared on the Late Late Show, the weekend chat show.

The Irish are generous people, this is surely another ‘marketing ploy,’ this ‘poignant’ trip to Donegal.

Are they even in Donegal?

The Donegal Dailys story is labelled EXCLUSIVE. Why don't they have an EXCLUSIVE picture of them actually there?

It's as made-up as the original Donegal fairytale story. IMO of course.

Nice one Clarry. But NEXT! Aren't we due another sighting soon? It's been few months now surely.

Oh and what's this photo of Maddie allegedly outside the pub? Not seen that one.....?

No doubt this is the photo referred to.

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

No sign of a pub though but what d'ya expect - accuracy from the media?!