Re: Madeleine's 'make-up 'photo

by Guest 24.08.13 20:49

Portia wrote:
worriedmum wrote:
Sceneset wrote:I think any photos of this apartment balcony ( The Solimar) that anyone remembers would be interesting to look at.Ive found a few taken after the event but no more of around the time of the event. If there is another with something hanging/ a person in a chair, I'd love to see if it had a metal? Utility/washing line fixing/ hook on the wall as in the make up photo.
If Madeleine can be placed in the Solimar apartments this would be very interesting as a visit to there isn't mentioned by the Mccanns with Madeleine and she had most of her time accounted for. It may be a visit they want to conceal if it did happen. I haven't seen that any other apartments had blue chairs.
Does this look similar to you? I think it is an extendable airer.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Who are these people?
Where, when?
The guy looks like DP, but who is the child?

Judging form het right hand, and from the posture of her legs: she's tries to wriggle away from him. Or am I mistaken?

by Hicks 24.08.13 21:07

Portia wrote:
Portia wrote:
worriedmum wrote:
Sceneset wrote:I think any photos of this apartment balcony ( The Solimar) that anyone remembers would be interesting to look at.Ive found a few taken after the event but no more of around the time of the event. If there is another with something hanging/ a person in a chair, I'd love to see if it had a metal? Utility/washing line fixing/ hook on the wall as in the make up photo.
If Madeleine can be placed in the Solimar apartments this would be very interesting as a visit to there isn't mentioned by the Mccanns with Madeleine and she had most of her time accounted for. It may be a visit they want to conceal if it did happen. I haven't seen that any other apartments had blue chairs.
Does this look similar to you? I think it is an extendable airer.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Who are these people?
Where, when?
The guy looks like DP, but who is the child?
Judging form het right hand, and from the posture of her legs: she's tries to wriggle away from him. Or am I mistaken?

Not too sure what this is all about but, could these pictures of DP be from the same holiday?

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

by worriedmum 24.08.13 21:14

It is one from the PJ files, of David Payne and one of his children I think ?

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

by T4two 24.08.13 22:12

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:As far as I know, it appeared like that only in this video with the camera panning to give a moving image impression.

whmon, I agree about the shade of blue but I doubt that it's a cot. It looks more like the back of a plastic chair or possibly the right shoulder of someone in a T-shirt sitting down.

So let's try and see if we can find someone we know with a shirt which has that distinctive shade of blue

What about this one?

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

or perhaps this one?

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

by Guest 24.08.13 22:30

I think the blue object is more likely to be a chair than a person. I also think that the object on the wall could be an extendable airer as Hicks suggested.

It does now seem very likely that this photo was taken in PDL.

by T4two 24.08.13 23:36

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I think the blue object is more likely to be a chair than a person. I also think that the object on the wall could be an extendable airer as Hicks suggested.

It does now seem very likely that this photo was taken in PDL.

Agree - the vertical line in particular suggests a chair rather than a shirt. If the photo was indeed taken in PDL, I wonder who took it and whose camera was used.

by Sceneset 25.08.13 0:37

Worried mum, I'm glad we both think its the same thing, thank you fr the photo. if it is an extendable airer fixing it's at the right height on the make up photo to suggest it's near where David Payne was sitting in the second photo.

It isn't the Solimar apartment then unless it was removed or attached between the two photos being taken.

I'm sure the blue is definitely a plastic chair. Shame the photo's in black and white...I've only seen white plastic furniture on the Ocean Club photos.

If Madeleine spent enough time (dressing up) at the Paynes apartment I can't think when she could have fitted that activity in. I think I'll have a look tomorrow to see if I can David stated in his statements that Madeleine spent time there ( when she wasn't at the club, having 'high tea' or left in her apartment)

I don't think his was the bigger apartment where Madeleine once had lunch.

by Sceneset 25.08.13 0:47

Also, the rendered squares of the Solimar's 'windows' were too small for some edge not to show around her head in the make up photo.
In the Payne photo the window is large, corresponding to the uninterrupted black area behind Madeleine's head and the metal? Fixing is in just the right place.

Maybe Madeleine is pictured at the Payne's apartment in the make up photo, though the chair is definitely white there.
The t shirt colour of Paynes is spot on t4two...I just blew it up and it has grooves on it like the chair...but it does look like a chair, a little too 'flat' for a shoulder.

by worriedmum 25.08.13 11:18

Sceneset, I think it looks similar but not sure that I would say that it is the same.It could be part of a light fitting. I do agree that the texture of the walls looks similar to holiday apartments.

With regard to the 'blue', I seem to remember that this was discussed a long time ago , maybe on other fora too. I seem to remember a bigger version of this picture, which showed it was a (man's) shoulder. Can anyone else remember this?

by Sceneset 25.08.13 13:18

Ah, I'll look for that, thank you. I read through Payne's rogatory interviews last night and they are quite vague regarding who visited, how often and when but does seems to suggest the McCanns did visit his apartment. He states they 'did their own thing' during the holiday for the majority of the time. I would have though he would have remembered a 'dressing up' playtime with Madeleine at his apartment, especially if that is his shoulder...everything about all this is so vague in statements..

I've just received a newly edited home video from my niece from twenty years ago and can still remember who was where/ did what on the days that were filmed.

by MissesWillYa 25.08.13 21:08

whmon wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:
candyfloss wrote:Why has the skirting board photo been turned around to show a different angle I wonder?? It has been turned to look as if Madeleine is standing up, with Missing Madeleine McCann underneath, where did it appear like this?
I've only seen it again in the video, it must be one supplied by the McCanns making it appear it was a seperate photo
I wonder why they would need to do that? To make a photo appear as if it was a separate photo implies that they have few photos of her, and for parents to have limited photos of a small child implies they weren't very interested in her. I know that I have hundreds of photos of my son aged 3 and under - and that was in the days when you had to go out and buy film for a camera then go out again to have them printed off!

As the eldest child of a couple who then had twins - I understand exactly what was going on with them and Madeleine. Madeleine was simply in the way.

I can sympathize. I was also the oldest and my parents had twins shortly after they had me. I always felt in the way. As a consequence, I now feel a bit like the "black sheep" as an adult. I never felt like I was part of them. I'm sorry you had the same experience.

I agree about the making it look like a second photo. It has always seemed to me that there are remarkably few photos of Madeleine for a child of nearly four years old, especially for one born in her era. My older child is two years younger than Madeleine and we had thousands of pictures of him by the time he was four. My younger child too, of course, but it's especially strange to me that such a "wanted" first child in the digital era would be so unfrequently photographed. I hope there are millions at home that the world has never seen. Sad

by whmon 26.08.13 1:11

Misseswillya, you and I can understand the dynamics of the family. People without twins cannot.

by Hicks 10.09.13 14:13

Apologies, I know that this subject has already been discussed at length but I just wanted to post these two video's.
Perhaps someone would be kind enough to post them side by side.

I think we can state with certainly that the blue behind M in the make up photo is exactly the same shade of blue in the vid where the 'heart broken' father appears.

DELETED PARAGRAPH

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

If you zoom in at 200%, or more, on the vid above you can clearly see that it is Kate he's joking with.

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

by comperedna 10.09.13 14:58

Sorry Hicks if I seem to be taking the mickey out of you, but all this talk of 'a body after death' picture is not merely creepy, it tells me that you maybe have not seen a person recently after death close up. (You can correct me if I'm wrong.) One of the first things that happens after death occurs in the eye. The iris, the blue or brown coloured part around the pupil, opens right up, until what you see in the eye is the white of the eye with the iris practically disappeared, and a huge black expanded pupil taking up the rest of the space of the eyeball. The iris, obviously, does not respond to light after death: it does not do its job of keeping the black opening (the pupil) at the correct size to prevent too much light falling on the light-sensitive seeing part, retina at the back of the eye. It is one of the clearest sign of death besides the usually stated ones. If you touch the eyeball there is obviously no 'flinching' reaction either, and it does not change in bright light or in dull light. In those pics M's eye looks totally normal. Forget 'glassy stare'!

by Hicks 10.09.13 15:24

comperedna5 wrote:Sorry Hicks if I seem to be taking the mickey out of you, but all this talk of 'a body after death' picture is not merely creepy, it tells me that you maybe have not seen a person recently after death close up. (You can correct me if I'm wrong.) One of the first things that happens after death occurs in the eye. The iris, the blue or brown coloured part around the pupil, opens right up, until what you see in the eye is the white of the eye with the iris practically disappeared, and a huge black expanded pupil taking up the rest of the space of the eyeball. The iris, obviously, does not respond to light after death: it does not do its job of keeping the black opening (the pupil) at the correct size to prevent too much light falling on the light-sensitive seeing part, retina at the back of the eye. It is one of the clearest sign of death besides the usually stated ones. If you touch the eyeball there is obviously no 'flinching' reaction either, and it does not change in bright light or in dull light. In those pics M's eye looks totally normal. Forget 'glassy stare'!

Don't worry comperedna5..... I have thick skin!

There is still lots wrong with that photo, the ears are way too low, the pose unnatural and at best M looks drugged.
I believe that GM went home three weeks after M disappeared for the purpose to 'doctor'-sorry for the pun- some of the photos.

Do you at least agree that the shade of blue matches?

I have seen dead bodies but only after the undertaker had been there first..

by comperedna 10.09.13 17:03

You are lovely Hicks. I get almost scared of putting something on here for fear of being 'shot at'. :-) Yes that pic is extremely disturbing and odd. I'm not sure if it is the angle at which it was taken, but all that you say about how the ears seem is true. Maybe she was in 'I am being a haughty princess' mode. I still get that from my twin granddaughters at five years old, though they would never have been allowed to tart themselves up for a photo like that. If they had been made up for fun, I'd have never have let that photo out of our sight. Little girls do love to doll themselves up for sure. Nail varnish as a treat is allowed to ours for going to birthday parties, but I confess I don't like even that. The more I see of the few famous photos we have, the sadder I get about the whole situation... for everyone concerned.

by BerylJ 10.09.13 18:27

Hicks wrote:Apologies, I know that this subject has already been discussed at length but I just wanted to post these two video's.
Perhaps someone would be kind enough to post them side by side.

I think we can state with certainly that the blue behind M in the make up photo is exactly the same shade of blue in the vid where the 'heart broken' father appears.

DELETED PARAGRAPH

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

If you zoom in at 200%, or more, on the vid above you can clearly see that it is Kate he's joking with.

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

Thank you Hicks. Yes it is Kate and the same blue, a plastic chair.

by Angelique 10.09.13 22:08

Message deleted

by Hicks 10.09.13 22:17

comperedna5 wrote:You are lovely Hicks. I get almost scared of putting something on here for fear of being 'shot at'. :-) Yes that pic is extremely disturbing and odd. I'm not sure if it is the angle at which it was taken, but all that you say about how the ears seem is true. Maybe she was in 'I am being a haughty princess' mode. I still get that from my twin granddaughters at five years old, though they would never have been allowed to tart themselves up for a photo like that. If they had been made up for fun, I'd have never have let that photo out of our sight. Little girls do love to doll themselves up for sure. Nail varnish as a treat is allowed to ours for going to birthday parties, but I confess I don't like even that. The more I see of the few famous photos we have, the sadder I get about the whole situation... for everyone concerned.

Oh bless you!

If that photo was taken in PDL then it is creepy, the MC'S gave two different accounts regarding the situation surrounding that pic. I feel it does has some significance.

My daughter loved to put on make up, infact, she still does( she is twelve) however like you, I would never let an image of her wearing make up go out into the public domain. The fact that the MC'S let that image out when they-supposedly- believed M had been taken by some pervert makes it all the more incredible.

by Guest 10.09.13 22:23

A reminder of the 2010 anniversary video in which this photo and other horrible ones were included.

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

by Guest 10.09.13 22:54

Actually, nothing but horrible ones, NFWTD. WHY?

by marconi 11.09.13 9:26

The bad taste photos and then the perfect genitals.
According to myself those people are sexually disturberd.
They are putting the twins at risk but who cares?

by Guest 11.09.13 10:15

marconi wrote:The bad taste photos and then the perfect genitals.
According to myself those people are sexually disturberd.
They are putting the twins at risk but who cares?

marconi
I sent you a pm
Kindest regards

parapono

by jozi 11.09.13 10:34

marconi wrote:The bad taste photos and then the perfect genitals.
According to myself those people are sexually disturberd.
They are putting the twins at risk but who cares?

I have to agree marconi those photos are disturbing to say the least ? Only 2 photos that stood out plus the photo with the massive eye defect ( which by the way Maddie don't have ) and they were the 2 that any genuine parent would not release to the world ?

Instead we have the parents all the way through the video, not looking anxious but showing everyone how busy they are ?

by **PeterMac** 11.09.13 11:09

Have we ever seen any footage from their video camera ?
It got sent to the UK for analysis, and then seems to have been
"Whooshed "

Log in for more topics