Re: There is a Little Girl Missing

by jmbd 16.02.10 12:10

Photo shopped.

by Autumn 16.02.10 12:13

Hmmmmm but then again, there are photos that do not show the eye defect - there was a photo in a newspaper that carried a photo of Maddie, complete with eye defect, except it was in the wrong eye!
Im not sure what to make of it but not totally convinced that she had an eye defect.

by vaguely1 16.02.10 12:15

Autumn wrote:Hmmmmm but then again, there are photos that do not show the eye defect - there was a photo in a newspaper that carried a photo of Maddie, complete with eye defect, except it was in the wrong eye!
Im not sure what to make of it but not totally convinced that she had an eye defect.

Okay, so you would rather believe it's made up or implanted just for photographs than believe that it fitted the newspaper layout better to reverse the image?

ETA, all those black people that were whited out for advertising campaigns etc....do you think that in reality they were already white?

by vaguely1 16.02.10 12:17

Okay. I'm going to pretend you're being serious.

So working on the basis that it doesn't exist, and that nobody who ever met her has come forward and said "Actually her eye isn't like that - her parents carry a contact lens around with them for photo opportunities"

Why make it up?

by jmbd 16.02.10 12:41

"Apart from the McCanns' family and friends, has an independant witness come forward to verify Maddie's eye defect?"

Why would anyone need to come forward to verify it? Is it newsworthy or even necessary?

Now if it was made up for marketing reasons there would be many people who could come forward and say "hold on Mccanns, I met Madeleine many times and never saw it".

Strange to put yourself in a situation to be easily proved wrong.

by Autumn 16.02.10 12:50

As I have said, I simply do not know - it has been discussed on other forums and something I have pondered on occasionally.

by jmbd 16.02.10 12:54

Well a lot of things have been discussed on other forums - most of it just plain and simply incorrect.

by jmbd 16.02.10 12:57

Making things up and inventing things back in the heady days of 2007 was a way of life to a lot of people. Some people keep repeating them, other people have moved with the times and facts that have been released.

by Autumn 16.02.10 14:13

So what, in your opinion, are the facts?

by jmbd 16.02.10 14:17

That Madeleine has a mark in her eye.

by marigold 17.02.10 0:40

jmbd wrote:That Madeleine has a mark in her eye.

Right. I've just replied to one of your posts on another thread about no mark in her eye but it now appears that you DO think she had one! So ignore my other post and can only assume you were being evasive in the other thread. Hadn't realised this was being discussed here.

by aliberte2 18.02.10 2:57

Autumn wrote:It is not absolutely certain that she had an eye defect - again, this may have been a ruse to make her a more marketable product. As the LP refused the PJ's request for Maddie's medical records, the columba could not be verified.

To Create One Marketing Product? The Look for Madeleine Sign?
We Think this Line of Speculation is Silly.
The Child Had An Eye Defect.
People Would Have Stampeded Themselves to Tell the Police If She did Not.

by aliberte2 18.02.10 2:58

Autumn wrote:
aliberte2 wrote:
Autumn wrote:Oh yes, the eye defect that the PJ warned the McCanns not to mention incase it put Madeleine at risk.

She Was Already in the Arms of an Abductor; Far More Important to Spread Whatever Readily Identifable marks necessary to Identify Her.
Perhaps if the PJ had Done their Job to Spread the Picture to Begin with the McCanns Wouldn't Have Done it on Their Own.
Again, you Don't Believe She was Abducted so the Eye Defect Doesn't matter.

What evidence do you have to back up your belief that 'she was already in the arms of an abductor'?

That Would be the Only Reason to Spread a Description.
If She Was Dead At the Hands of the McCanns She Could Not be At Risk.

Latest topics