Most pictures taken on same day

The child who proclaimed 'these are my shoes' seemed almost surprised at having a pair of shoes for herself and it seemed to me that Madeleine most probaby had very little that was uniquely her own; no items that she alone was able to play with without fear that she'd have to share them with the twins, or that they'd be allowed to appropriate them.
 
Much of her clothing appears to be curiously dated and out of fashion as if it had been handed down from a much older child - perhaps her paternal female cousin, Uncle John's daughter? 

The particulary ill-fitting top and stripey trousers she's wearing in the playground photos are not items I'd let a child wear in public; to my mind they're only fit for the bin but, at a pinch, I'd let a child wear them to create mud puddles in the back yard or indulge in particularly messy play knowing that there'd be no need to launder them afterwards. 

All in all, I get the overwhelming impression that Madeleine was simply not wanted on voyage after the twins were conceived and I have considerable doubt as to whether she ever had a place in the hearts or minds of her parents.

juliet wrote:The pink sandals are the ones Maddie seemed so proud of when she and the twins were filmed in the hall. The twins then seemed very young btw. The tennis sandals were those old fashioned ugly things. I agree that Madeleine seemed badly dressed most of the time, with unbrushed hair.

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

Do you think the photos of the child in the playground in stripey trousers shows her wearing the same shoes as Amelie is wearing in this Donegal photo?
I'm sorry I don't know how to show them together, if someone else can?
The child (Madddie?) in the playground doesn't look at all well does she?  Very pale and thin.   
It is difficult to believe that these playground photos were taken in April 2007 imo.

daffodil wrote:

juliet wrote:The pink sandals are the ones Maddie seemed so proud of when she and the twins were filmed in the hall. The twins then seemed very young btw. The tennis sandals were those old fashioned ugly things. I agree that Madeleine seemed badly dressed most of the time, with unbrushed hair.

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

Do you think the photos of the child in the playground in stripey trousers shows her wearing the same shoes as Amelie is wearing in this Donegal photo?
I'm sorry I don't know how to show them together, if someone else can?
The child (Madddie?) in the playground doesn't look at all well does she?  Very pale and thin.   
It is difficult to believe that these playground photos were taken in April 2007 imo.

Yes I think the brief section of the stripey trouser Madeleine is wearing the same pink sandals she was showing in the sat on the bottom stair step video, and that they are the same shoes that Amelie is wearing, now much scuffed on the Donegal photograph. 
Unfortunately I cannot put thee pictures together either, but wager they are the same pink sandals.

ultimaThule wrote:The child who proclaimed 'these are my shoes' seemed almost surprised at having a pair of shoes for herself and it seemed to me that Madeleine most probaby had very little that was uniquely her own; no items that she alone was able to play with without fear that she'd have to share them with the twins, or that they'd be allowed to appropriate them.
 
Much of her clothing appears to be curiously dated and out of fashion as if it had been handed down from a much older child - perhaps her paternal female cousin, Uncle John's daughter? 

The particulary ill-fitting top and stripey trousers she's wearing in the playground photos are not items I'd let a child wear in public; to my mind they're only fit for the bin but, at a pinch, I'd let a child wear them to create mud puddles in the back yard or indulge in particularly messy play knowing that there'd be no need to launder them afterwards. 

All in all, I get the overwhelming impression that Madeleine was simply not wanted on voyage after the twins were conceived and I have considerable doubt as to whether she ever had a place in the hearts or minds of her parents.

I have to add that those words from Madeleine about "my shoes" also struck a chord in my heart when I saw the video some time ago.  It made me feel very sad for her.

I know I've mentioned it many times before but mention it again for any new members that have joined since that IMO Madeleine did not live with K & G McCann full time but lived elsewhere, either with family members or foster parents, therefore she was a stranger to the twins and K & G whenever she was taken on holiday with them or at "family events".  It was revealing that K & G said on the Crimewatch programme that she was mostly missed at "family events", which gives the impression that was the only time they had anything to do with her as she was brought into the family for birthdays, Christmas but was not around for day to day events, IMO.

One of the questions asked of KM by the PJ was "were you thinking of giving Madeleine away to a family member" or words to that effect, they obviously knew what was going on in the family to have asked that question.

It was also revealing that in KM's book she didn't seem to know anything about Madeleine's likes or dislikes but had to make up the fact that Madeleine was a big Dr Who fan (a 3-4 year old, yeah, right!) and a fan of a dodgy girl band whose lyrics were very explicit apparently, I can say I've never heard of them or listened to their songs, but KM thought they were OK for a 3-4 year old to listen to.

Nina wrote:

daffodil wrote:

juliet wrote:The pink sandals are the ones Maddie seemed so proud of when she and the twins were filmed in the hall. The twins then seemed very young btw. The tennis sandals were those old fashioned ugly things. I agree that Madeleine seemed badly dressed most of the time, with unbrushed hair.

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

Do you think the photos of the child in the playground in stripey trousers shows her wearing the same shoes as Amelie is wearing in this Donegal photo?
I'm sorry I don't know how to show them together, if someone else can?
The child (Madddie?) in the playground doesn't look at all well does she?  Very pale and thin.   
It is difficult to believe that these playground photos were taken in April 2007 imo.

Yes I think the brief section of the stripey trouser Madeleine is wearing the same pink sandals she was showing in the sat on the bottom stair step video, and that they are the same shoes that Amelie is wearing, now much scuffed on the Donegal photograph. 
Unfortunately I cannot put thee pictures together either, but wager they are the same pink sandals.

Yes, The pink shoes are a confusing issue.

There they are, looking new, being worn by Madeleine (stripey trousers pic.)

Then they appear in the stairgate video - all scuffed and worn, held by Madeleine, with Gerry asking who's they are and if they're new. (To which the answer was yes.)

Then the same shoes, still all scuffed are being worn by Amelie in the Donegal picture.

Seems odd to me.

mysterion wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:One thing I have noticed in many photographs of Madeleine is how "scruffy" her clothing is, and Ultimathule has mentioned this too.   Kate though has talked about MBM's new holiday clothing from Monsoon (not cheap) and Gap and, as usual with any of Kate's utterances, I wonder what the significance of this could be, if any.

Like other posters, I don't like commenting on Madeleine's appearance.  To me she looks a beautiful little girl.

Monsoon and Gap is name dropping. Same as NZ wine in Pdl. Snob value IMO. Trivial info within the context of the main subject matter.

OK, I won't post any trivial info again, promise.

mysterion wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:One thing I have noticed in many photographs of Madeleine is how "scruffy" her clothing is, and Ultimathule has mentioned this too.   Kate though has talked about MBM's new holiday clothing from Monsoon (not cheap) and Gap and, as usual with any of Kate's utterances, I wonder what the significance of this could be, if any.

Like other posters, I don't like commenting on Madeleine's appearance.  To me she looks a beautiful little girl.

Monsoon and Gap is name dropping. Same as NZ wine in Pdl. Snob value IMO. Trivial info within the context of the main subject matter.

I don't think you can just drop the subject as you seem to be trying to do, KM wasn't "name dropping" as you say, she was trying to make a statement, I've been here too long (probably too long) to know that whatever KM says has a meaning behind it.

I do believe (IMO) that Madeleine's head has been superimposed on the body of another child sitting at the pool wearing the Monsoon and Gap clothing.  Many people on this forum have done a search of the clothing and none have come up with those items being sold within the timescale of the McCanns going on that holiday.  I would really like to know whose child the McCanns were using in the photo and who haven't had the guts to come forward.

There's no 'snob value' in Gap or Monsoon clothes for either adults or children .  Similarly, drinking New Zealand or other imported wine on a week's holiday to Portugal, where an extensive selection of much coveted home produced varieties are readily available, has no cachet whatsoever and merely reveals an uneducated palate.

Fwiw, when investigating serious crimes of this nature there's no such thing as 'trivial information'.  Every scrap gleaned is noted and given full consideration as it may go some way to substantiate opportunity or motive, and/or provide valuable insight into the psychology of the perpetrator(s).

Nina wrote:

daffodil wrote:

juliet wrote:The pink sandals are the ones Maddie seemed so proud of when she and the twins were filmed in the hall. The twins then seemed very young btw. The tennis sandals were those old fashioned ugly things. I agree that Madeleine seemed badly dressed most of the time, with unbrushed hair.

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

Do you think the photos of the child in the playground in stripey trousers shows her wearing the same shoes as Amelie is wearing in this Donegal photo?
I'm sorry I don't know how to show them together, if someone else can?
The child (Madddie?) in the playground doesn't look at all well does she?  Very pale and thin.   
It is difficult to believe that these playground photos were taken in April 2007 imo.

Yes I think the brief section of the stripey trouser Madeleine is wearing the same pink sandals she was showing in the sat on the bottom stair step video, and that they are the same shoes that Amelie is wearing, now much scuffed on the Donegal photograph. 
Unfortunately I cannot put thee pictures together either, but wager they are the same pink sandals.

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

Have look at page 9. I can't post the pictures. The pink shoes became sandals for Amelie and the 'red' shoes in the hallway are definitely pink. Same ones. Imo

Tigger, I've just read page 9 of the link you posted with great interest. Looking at the bottom of the stairs photo in which Madeleine is holding up one of the supposedly 'new' pink sandals it immediately struck me that those sandals would have been far too big for her small feet, of which there is a very good view clad only in white socks. Its also patently obvious that the sandals have been worn outside quite a bit because the soles are grubby and grey in parts.
She's obviously very proud of her 'new' sandals and I wonder if they could have been a hand me down from one of her cousins, so they would be new to her but not new in the sense of just bought specially for her.
Looking at her clothes both in this photo and many more I also get the impression of hand me downs. They often look ill fitting and well worn.
When my two girls were very young I had little money and a kind neighbour gave me a huge bag of clothing that her daughter had grown out of. I was very glad of them even though I would have much preferred to have bought my own. However, when you're poor you can't afford pride.. Its hard to imagine a couple of well paid doctors being in that situation, though.

suep wrote: Tigger, I've just read page 9 of the link you posted with great interest. Looking at the bottom of the stairs photo in which Madeleine is holding up one of the supposedly 'new' pink sandals it immediately struck me that those sandals would have been far too big for her small feet, of which there is a very good view clad only in white socks. Its also patently obvious that the sandals have been worn outside quite a bit because the soles are grubby and grey in parts.
She's obviously very proud of her 'new' sandals and I wonder if they could have been a hand me down from one of her cousins, so they would be new to her but not new in the sense of just bought specially for her.
Looking at her clothes both in this photo and many more I also get the impression of hand me downs. They often look ill fitting and well worn.
When my two girls were very young I had little money  and a kind neighbour gave me a huge bag of clothing that her daughter had grown out of. I was very glad of them even though I would have much preferred to have bought my own. However, when you're poor you can't afford pride.. Its hard to imagine a couple of well paid doctors being in that situation, though.

I think the mccanns were poor as all the children seem to wearing cloths that were to big for them although theres nothing to be ashamed of wearing hand me downs,but I think it was aunty phil who said they were broke before the holiday, then you have to take into account the two mortgage payments they they took out of the fund,but since Madeleines so called abduction they are now in the money.

Need to clarify what I meant by "snob value" in relation to the clothes and wine. Sure those items are not that special in the greater scheme but they certainly were to Kate and to mention them in a book with such a serious subject matter seems shockingly trivial.

Yes I know what you mean, Mysterion.

I think that Kate is anxious to distance herself from her modest origins and deludes herself by thinking that mentioning things like clothes and wine makes her appear "posh".

She makes it clear from various other remarks in the book and elsewhere that she hasn't actually progressed much from the gutter!

tiny wrote:

suep wrote: Tigger, I've just read page 9 of the link you posted with great interest. Looking at the bottom of the stairs photo in which Madeleine is holding up one of the supposedly 'new' pink sandals it immediately struck me that those sandals would have been far too big for her small feet, of which there is a very good view clad only in white socks. Its also patently obvious that the sandals have been worn outside quite a bit because the soles are grubby and grey in parts.
She's obviously very proud of her 'new' sandals and I wonder if they could have been a hand me down from one of her cousins, so they would be new to her but not new in the sense of just bought specially for her.
Looking at her clothes both in this photo and many more I also get the impression of hand me downs. They often look ill fitting and well worn.
When my two girls were very young I had little money  and a kind neighbour gave me a huge bag of clothing that her daughter had grown out of. I was very glad of them even though I would have much preferred to have bought my own. However, when you're poor you can't afford pride.. Its hard to imagine a couple of well paid doctors being in that situation, though.

I think the mccanns were poor as all the children seem to wearing cloths that were to big for them although theres nothing to be ashamed of wearing hand me downs,but I think it was aunty phil who said they were broke before the holiday, then you have to take into account the two mortgage payments they they took out of the fund,but since Madeleines so called abduction they are now in the money.

My kids wore hand me downs virtually all the time till they were early teens. Cousins, friends, passed all the clothes round to whoever had the appropriate age/size.
The thing with children's clothes is they are hardly worn out before the children grow too big.
No point in wasting money on new clothes when it can far better be spent on more nutritious food, travelling experiences, anything constructive / family time together.
The only thing I will say is that whoever was putting whichever children into whose so ever clothes, did make sure that they were 'fitting' and appropriate to the child's needs and sense of well being. The kids all looked lovely because the clothing was selected for their needs, not the other way round.
I do think that Kate's attitude to the children was very much as that their needs come as an after-thought.
Her very mention of 'pasta' for tea, milk and biscuits before bed sounds nutritionally hopeless. Ironic when Uncle Phil waxes lyrical about the ice-cream Maddie and the children have outside the parlour in Donegal.
Kate and Gerry were apparently obsessed with the children always having healthy food, loads of fruit and fibre, and that this ice-cream was the 'first time ever' that Maddie had had, a real, Mr. WHUPPY* as her dear old glaswegian accent has it.  

*from the AlJazeera video, at 33.57 Uncle Phil/ ice creams

tiny wrote:

suep wrote: Tigger, I've just read page 9 of the link you posted with great interest. Looking at the bottom of the stairs photo in which Madeleine is holding up one of the supposedly 'new' pink sandals it immediately struck me that those sandals would have been far too big for her small feet, of which there is a very good view clad only in white socks. Its also patently obvious that the sandals have been worn outside quite a bit because the soles are grubby and grey in parts.
She's obviously very proud of her 'new' sandals and I wonder if they could have been a hand me down from one of her cousins, so they would be new to her but not new in the sense of just bought specially for her.
Looking at her clothes both in this photo and many more I also get the impression of hand me downs. They often look ill fitting and well worn.
When my two girls were very young I had little money  and a kind neighbour gave me a huge bag of clothing that her daughter had grown out of. I was very glad of them even though I would have much preferred to have bought my own. However, when you're poor you can't afford pride.. Its hard to imagine a couple of well paid doctors being in that situation, though.

I think the mccanns were poor as all the children seem to wearing cloths that were to big for them although theres nothing to be ashamed of wearing hand me downs,but I think it was aunty phil who said they were broke before the holiday, then you have to take into account the two mortgage payments they they took out of the fund,but since Madeleines so called abduction they are now in the money.

My point was more about Nina's post on the shoes being used by Amelie in Donegal.

I think it's a very bad perspective in that film in the hallway. So the shoes look bigger.
1. Shoes belonging to Maddie in hallway. maddie prob. 2. Yrs 3/4 months going by the twins who'd be around 9 months?
2. Same shoes on Amelie in Donegal. april 07.
3. Same shoes with toes cut off summer 07 at the villa.
Just trying to estimate ages.

On suep's point about hand me downs, there is a photo of Madeleine in a pink and white dress iirc riding a girl's bike with ribbons. At first glance it looks like a nice new bike for her: but it's much too small. Is it Amelie's that she was allowed to borrow? I don't think there are any pics of Maddie with her own bike, or even a scooter. And so few anecdotes about her from the family. Just ridiculous tales about her loving Dr Who and Harry Potter and Pussycat Doll lyrics! It is hard to believe she was a "much loved" 3 year old.

For a family that was possibly poor enough to have to rely on hand me down clothes for their children they certainly seemed to have a lot of holidays. That Mark Warner package alone would have cost them well over a thousand pounds and if we're to believe the story of how it came about they were able to sign up to it just a few months before going and not long after Christmas at that - always an expensive time of year when you have a big extended family to buy presents for. And before jetting off to Portugal they were able to afford the trip to Ireland.
They were also living in a good sized house in an area with the most expensive property in Leicester. I recall reading somewhere that their previous house had been bought for them by a relative. Is that true? If so, why did they burden themselves unnecessarily with a big mortgage at a time when Kate was only able to work part time? And wasn't there a rumour that before Madeleine disappeared she was considering having another child?

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Yes I know what you mean, Mysterion.

I think that Kate is anxious to distance herself from her modest origins and deludes herself by thinking that mentioning things like clothes and wine makes her appear "posh".

She makes it clear from various other remarks in the book and elsewhere that she hasn't actually progressed much from the gutter!

Using a 'g' word to chart the saintly one's progress, NFWTD?  The last time I used an appropriate 'g' word to accurately describe GM you deleted it!   

I agree with your estimation but you've left out Kate's pugnacious spouse who is living proof that you can take the boy out of the Gorbals but you can't take the Gorbals out of the boy - a phrase which, with geographic adaptation, is generally used to denote those whose upward social mobility has failed to bring about any commeasurate change in their manners and which I use here intending no disrespect whatsoever to all of those former Glaswegian tenement dwellers who give lie to the saying

Rothley Towers and the artifices that go with it are a major plank of the construct by which K&G can be seen by others, and perceive themselves, as being fine upstanding well-heeled middle class members of society; a class which particularly prides itself on observance of courtesy and civility to others when, in truth, these two recent additions to the ranks are as uncouth and ungracious as they've always been - and always will be.

This illusion of middle class respectability served them well in the days following Madeleine's disappearance, as did press reports of the couple being a 'heart surgeon' and a 'GP' - this latter, in particular, implying longstanding service to the community when the (scary for patients) reality is that a hospital doctor who has focused their attention on one specialism can become a locum GP, diagnosing and prescribing for all known ailments both mental and physical, without further training. 

In Kate's case, it would appear she abandoned her anasthesiology training prior to the birth of her first daughter in 2003, was unemployed until she became a part-time locum GP in 2006 working one and a half days per week for a large general practice and, by the time of her holiday to Portugal, had racked up less than 4 months full time experience of this speciality whereas vocational GP training takes some 5 years to complete and is not a course which can be embarked upon on a part-time basis.  

With regard to the McCanns' finances, unsurprisingly given their potential earnings in the longer term, banks fall over themselves to lend to doctors and, even if they'd required a 100% mortgage, repayments on the house in Queniborough would have been unlikely to have overstretched their joint income at the time of purchase. 

I've read nothing to suggest this property was purchased for them by a relative, suep, but there is a thread somewhere which gives more detail including the dates when they bought in Queniborough and subsequently sold up to buy in Rothley, together with purchase prices and other information which, as far I recall, suggested that the Queniborough house was rented out while the couple were domiciled in Amsterdam in order to facilitate GM's career and where, coincidentally, they discovered they were eligible for the free ivf treatment which led to the birth of the twins.     

Fwiw I suspect that, prior to the creation of the limited company lifestyle fund, the McCanns' finances were something of a house of cards built on the monopoly money of maxed out plastic and constant switching from one company to another in order to benefit from a period of 0% interest.  No doubt AR has acquired all of the pertinent details but, unfortunately, he's not telling... yet   

I rather get the feeling that Kate and Gerry were in a state of "keeping up appearances" when it came to other family members. Looking at the Irish pictures, the two cousins are casually dressed in trackies and t-shirts. Whereas the three McCann kids are colour coordinated in expensive-looking clothes, all matching one another, and bundled up to the chin to show off posh-looking hoodie jackets and leggings (in spite of the two cousins being less cumbersomely clad, indicating to me that it wasn't very cold there on that day).

Twiggycooper wrote:Something just strikes me on the photo which tigger posted (the one of the video where Madeleine is showing "her" shoe). Her neck does not seem right to me. It looks as if she is wearing a turtleneck (she is not). I am especially feeling for her looking at this photo. Also her left fingers are someway strangely hanging down. I do not exactly know what it might be, but her appearance just does not look ok here.

 

… sorry, I am not a native speaker …

You're right - her neck does look odd! (and her hand too)
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

But only in this picture - not the others from the same video. I have no explanation for this.

I've had a few thoughts about Madeleine's clothes. In no particular order:

1. Kate is a narcissist. If Madeleine was her "mini-me" Kate would have insisted that she wore the best.

2. There's nothing wrong with hand me down clothes. However, second-hand shoes could cause future foot problems because children's bones are flexible.

3. Monsoon - I bought a dress from there that fell apart at the seams (I subsequently discovered that they have a reputation for high prices and low quality)

4. Gap - kid's clothes arouind 2007 were fantastic quality. Tops, if bought a little too large, would last for years and still look like new.

5. Bearing in mind points 3 & 4 and the fact that the Mcs should be comfortably well-off, I wouldn't call buying clothes from Monsoon & Gap an indulgence but then I'm not convinced that Kate ever shopped in those two stores.

6. Perhaps she name-checked Gap & Monsoon in the hope that they would kit-out the family with new wardrobes.

Some thoughts to throw into the mix -

As someone who was in that part of Ireland that Easter the McCann children's clothes have always bothered me, it was unseasonly warm. I received a message from a friend in Donegal who had got sunburned that week.

Madeleine, on so many pic's, has her hand to her head / face. Was she wearing a hair piece that caused discomfort or that she was very conscious of?

Over the years many different posters have commented on Madeleine's fingers.

If well meaning family / friends passed on clothes for 4 year olds, if Madeleine was extremely small for her age they would be baggy on her.

The pic with the bike breaks my heart, it is too small for her but her joy is obvious.

Many question the Donegal pic of Madeleine sitting with the others is actually her. Those clothes are far nicer than those shell usually gets to wear - plus her neck is all wrong and her hand odd. (How many pics of that poor child seem to have a swollen or misplaced neck??)

There's obviously "poor" and then there's "poor" . Anyone who lives in a 4 bedroomed, detached house in a well-to-do area is definitely not poor. Two excellent salaries coming in, Gerry with his private practice add-on and cheap childcare in the shape of relatives. We should all be so lucky.  
I notice that whatever the state of the fund at any given time, there's never any mention of the McCanns' downgrading and buying a cheaper property. Why not? Have they ever put any money of their own into the fund or used their own money on journeys and hotel costs, I think if they had we'd have all heard about it?
And we never hear them mention a reward for information that the family have put up with their own money, again why don't they have a family whip round and put up a reward?
They appear to love bringing the money in to the fund, but they also like hanging onto their own. Poor Madeleine.