Maddie's clothes

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

Photograph nr. 12 Shoes and clothes.
Pink soles to the trainers,
Lovely little outfit, especially the trousers with the little hearts on the knees.
Never mentioned, are these the trainers with the lights on the sides which the cleaner saw?
These trainers also look fairly new.

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

It's been mentioned before but I find this particular picture puzzling because of the stains on her knees. The photo is supposed to be from the 28th, shortly after their arrival in PDL. Madeleine was wearing a shorter pair of trousers when she fell on the steps boarding the plane. Did the parents change her trousers without tending to her cuts which were still bleeding? Or did Madeleine have some medical condition causing abnormal bleeding and clotting problems? Or did they bring on holiday clothes that were soiled? Or did she simply get dirty playing on the lawn even though the weather looked dry and Kate says 'the weather was pleasant enough,although there was a cool breeze'?

tuom wrote:

tigger wrote:frommybigdesk.blogspot.com Anna Esse 29/12/2009 zimbio
Eileen McCann, Madeleine's grandmother who lives in Scotland, stated that any of Madeleine's DNA that was found in the hired car could be explained by the fact that Amelie was wearing Madeleine's sandals and her tops. (Daily Mail 2/10/09)

I find it quite strange that Amelie was wearing her sister's clothes. If one of my children had disappeared, there is no way that their clothes would have been worn by another child in the family. At some point I may have given some to a charity shop, just some, but I would not have immediately been dressing another child in those clothes. This seems like another clue that Kate and Gerry were not expecting Madeleine to turn up any time soon.
Unquote.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I agree and also but not that abnormal that the two girls feet were the same size ??

Amelie is petite, she's much smaller than Sean and Maddie was bigger than Sean. How can the sandals in the tennis photo have fitted Amelie a few months later?

sorry to jump around a bit, I was just reading the list of clothes again and noticed that two towels are listed. They are categorised as 'San Pedro' and 'Felpotece'.. A bit surprised thay are not English brands, or are these provided by Mark Warner? Does that mean the Mccanns did not have to bring their own towels, or that they bought these on holiday?

Ribisl wrote:

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

Photograph nr. 12 Shoes and clothes.
Pink soles to the trainers,
Lovely little outfit, especially the trousers with the little hearts on the knees.
Never mentioned, are these the trainers with the lights on the sides which the cleaner saw?
These trainers also look fairly new.

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



It's been mentioned before but I find this particular picture puzzling because of the stains on her knees. The photo is supposed to be from the 28th, shortly after their arrival in PDL. Madeleine was wearing a shorter pair of trousers when she fell on the steps boarding the plane. Did the parents change her trousers without tending to her cuts which were still bleeding? Or did Madeleine have some medical condition causing abnormal bleeding and clotting problems? Or did they bring on holiday clothes that were soiled? Or did she simply get dirty playing on the lawn even though the weather looked dry and Kate says 'the weather was pleasant enough,although there was a cool breeze'?

They are not stains they are embroidered heart shapes on the knee area Ribsl. You can see them clearly when picture enlarged.

I think there are two spots on her knees, just between the two little hearts, but I'd expect those to be from kneeling on the grass. Not blood. She didn't really fall very hard. Mind you, my child, I'd have to check and I'd have been a lot closer to her on those steps.

Trousers are too long for safety, I've seen quite a few photographs where she is wearing clothes slightly too big. E.g. the red dress in the kitchen. Coupled with the fuss about the Gap and Monsoon clothes, one gets the impression that buying clothes for the children is not a fun thing to do for Kate. Buy them big enough to last at least a year?
Pass Maddie's clothes and shoes on to Amelie and Sean?
The diary with it's complaint about the twins throwing tantrums when they were going to buy shoes for them?
It all sounds like a big chore.

Those trousers are way too long for safety, playing, or even walking. It looks as if the crotch has slipped, they are too big all round when that happens, esp the waist width, why they slip. They are almost half way down her trainer uppers. It takes a few minutes and a needle and thread to hem the bottoms and to cut waist seam, pull elastic tighter, tie and stitch seam shut.
Sorry to be carping over trivia but this is basic stuff for parents, that or get the correct size if you do not want to make alterations.

candyfloss wrote:

They are not stains they are embroidered heart shapes on the knee area Ribsl. You can see them clearly when picture enlarged.

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

Candyfloss - I can see stains on both knees quite clearly and they look reddish brown as opposed to green from kneeling on the grass, as suggested by tigger. Maybe it had been raining and the ground was wet. I really don't wish to make a big issue of this as we can only guess at what might have caused it. And there may be a perfectly innocuous explanation. Just that it's been bothering me for some time.

Ribisl wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

They are not stains they are embroidered heart shapes on the knee area Ribsl. You can see them clearly when picture enlarged.

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

Candyfloss - I can see stains on both knees quite clearly and they look reddish brown as opposed to green from kneeling on the grass, as suggested by tigger. Maybe it had been raining and the ground was wet. I really don't wish to make a big issue of this as we can only guess at what might have caused it. And there may be a perfectly innocuous explanation. Just that it's been bothering me for some time.

No need to make issues at all Ribsl, I still can't see them, but then everyones eyes are different, and so are their computer screen resolution

candyfloss wrote:

Ribisl wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

They are not stains they are embroidered heart shapes on the knee area Ribsl. You can see them clearly when picture enlarged.

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

Candyfloss - I can see stains on both knees quite clearly and they look reddish brown as opposed to green from kneeling on the grass, as suggested by tigger. Maybe it had been raining and the ground was wet. I really don't wish to make a big issue of this as we can only guess at what might have caused it. And there may be a perfectly innocuous explanation. Just that it's been bothering me for some time.

No need to make issues at all Ribsl, I still can't see them, but then everyones eyes are different, and so are their computer screen resolution

Time to visit specsavers?

Ribisl wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

Ribisl wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

They are not stains they are embroidered heart shapes on the knee area Ribsl. You can see them clearly when picture enlarged.

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

Candyfloss - I can see stains on both knees quite clearly and they look reddish brown as opposed to green from kneeling on the grass, as suggested by tigger. Maybe it had been raining and the ground was wet. I really don't wish to make a big issue of this as we can only guess at what might have caused it. And there may be a perfectly innocuous explanation. Just that it's been bothering me for some time.

No need to make issues at all Ribsl, I still can't see them, but then everyones eyes are different, and so are their computer screen resolution

Time to visit specsavers?

You or me, I'm wearing mine, although they are steaming up today

tigger wrote:

tuom wrote:

tigger wrote:frommybigdesk.blogspot.com Anna Esse 29/12/2009 zimbio
Eileen McCann, Madeleine's grandmother who lives in Scotland, stated that any of Madeleine's DNA that was found in the hired car could be explained by the fact that Amelie was wearing Madeleine's sandals and her tops. (Daily Mail 2/10/09)

I find it quite strange that Amelie was wearing her sister's clothes. If one of my children had disappeared, there is no way that their clothes would have been worn by another child in the family. At some point I may have given some to a charity shop, just some, but I would not have immediately been dressing another child in those clothes. This seems like another clue that Kate and Gerry were not expecting Madeleine to turn up any time soon.
Unquote.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] I agree and also but not that abnormal that the two girls feet were the same size ??

Amelie is petite, she's much smaller than Sean and Maddie was bigger than Sean. How can the sandals in the tennis photo have fitted Amelie a few months later?

There's a very clear shot of Amelie's shoe at 3.37 on this link, filmed August 2007.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Note the toe cut out, as too small. When my parents were incredibly poor after dad came home from the war, I loved having the toes cut from my Clarks sandals to stretch wear for a while. Surprised they had to do it though! Maybe they were really broke. No, KM still had her highlights done, but some parents have strange priorities.

Anyway, compare that "first" shoe to Madeleine showing off her Clarks early 2006? here. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sorry I dont have the know how to post the two pics, but no way could they swap shoes.

Just saw that cut shoe of Amelie. Really weird, it just re-enforces my belief that it was all about the money. All the time, it also shows up in the book.

Either that or Kate didn't like spending money on the children, why mention Gap and Monsoon as if it was outrageously expensive. Harrods would be, those are mid price stores.

tigger wrote:Just saw that cut shoe of Amelie. Really weird, it just re-enforces my belief that it was all about the money. All the time, it also shows up in the book.

Either that or Kate didn't like spending money on the children, why mention Gap and Monsoon as if it was outrageously expensive. Harrods would be, those are mid price stores.

I believe she was fixing a date to those clothes. Not sure how to explain, but police can date by clothing.

I have seen it all now, toes cut out of sandals to extend wear [ again I will say that is a safety issue] penny pinching on their salaries? Unbelievable.

Spaniel wrote:

tigger wrote:Just saw that cut shoe of Amelie. Really weird, it just re-enforces my belief that it was all about the money. All the time, it also shows up in the book.

Either that or Kate didn't like spending money on the children, why mention Gap and Monsoon as if it was outrageously expensive. Harrods would be, those are mid price stores.

I believe she was fixing a date to those clothes. Not sure how to explain, but police can date by clothing.

I don't think so, Spaniel. But that is a very good idea. Could anyone find out when that particular little pink dress was in Monsoon/Gap's collection? My betting is that it was 2006. Because she does look quite young in the pool photo. I've never see a photograph with the broderie anglaise shorts. The tennis shorts are also quite large by the looks of it.

It's one of the few clothes that seem to fit her well. In April 2007 it was a bit early for the summer collection. That year we have her in the strappy dress from the ice cream photo and the skirting board one. Another dress that fitted, unlike the much too large red dress (kitchen photo).

tigger wrote:

Spaniel wrote:

tigger wrote:Just saw that cut shoe of Amelie. Really weird, it just re-enforces my belief that it was all about the money. All the time, it also shows up in the book.

Either that or Kate didn't like spending money on the children, why mention Gap and Monsoon as if it was outrageously expensive. Harrods would be, those are mid price stores.

I believe she was fixing a date to those clothes. Not sure how to explain, but police can date by clothing.

I don't think so, Spaniel. But that is a very good idea. Could anyone find out when that particular little pink dress was in Monsoon/Gap's collection? My betting is that it was 2006. Because she does look quite young in the pool photo. I've never see a photograph with the broderie anglaise shorts. The tennis shorts are also quite large by the looks of it.

It's one of the few clothes that seem to fit her well. In April 2007 it was a bit early for the summer collection. That year we have her in the strappy dress from the ice cream photo and the skirting board one. Another dress that fitted, unlike the much too large red dress (kitchen photo).

Tigger I think the white shorts were supposedly on MMC the day the "last" picture was taken (pool Picture) , its in the book when KMC mentioned that MMC looked so lovely in her pink top and shorts , also the mention of Gap and Monsoon IIRC

Spaniel wrote:

tigger wrote:Just saw that cut shoe of Amelie. Really weird, it just re-enforces my belief that it was all about the money. All the time, it also shows up in the book.

Either that or Kate didn't like spending money on the children, why mention Gap and Monsoon as if it was outrageously expensive. Harrods would be, those are mid price stores.

I believe she was fixing a date to those clothes. Not sure how to explain, but police can date by clothing.

Spaniel, I think you have a good point there. I have a friend in retail. I'm going to ask her if the bar codes on clothes show a batch number/or some other identifying number that is scanned in for stock purposes/relates to which store the garment was despatched to. There is also the fashion/trend/season element which can date a garment but it would be interesting to know if a barcode can identify a store through some stock/inventory scanning procedure.

On the topic re the towel and the dogs the pink dress is mentioned.

The pink dress which she wore that same day allegedly.

The pink dress was mentioned particularly by Kate as being the reason the 'paedophile' element picked Maddie, or at least helped...
The pink dress is mentioned in the book but Kate said it's apricot coloured - well it was four years later but the photograph was there to help ...
The pink dress - in the book Kate goes into detail on the expense and the fact that it might have been a good idea to buy a cardigan too... but:
the photograph taken is clearly taken on a very hot day, going by the sunburn on Gerry's face and the general 'feel' of the photograph.

So the cardigan would not have been needed according to the photograph. Which imo was taken some 8 months earlier at least.
But a cardigan would have been good for Maddie to have on the third of May 07. A week which wasn't very warm at all, it even rained.
Different weather, different times and in recall, different colours.

The pink dress was headlined at least once as the reason why Maddie was selected by the abductor.

If we compare that dress with the red dress she wears in the 'birthday photos' it's evident that the red dress is far too big for her, but in those photographs it also looks as if the pink dress would be too small at that time.

tigger wrote:On the topic re the towel and the dogs the pink dress is mentioned.

The pink dress which she wore that same day allegedly.

The pink dress was mentioned particularly by Kate as being the reason the 'paedophile' element picked Maddie, or at least helped...
The pink dress is mentioned in the book but Kate said it's apricot coloured - well it was four years later but the photograph was there to help ...
The pink dress - in the book Kate goes into detail on the expense and the fact that it might have been a good idea to buy a cardigan too... but:
the photograph taken is clearly taken on a very hot day, going by the sunburn on Gerry's face and the general 'feel' of the photograph.

So the cardigan would not have been needed according to the photograph. Which imo was taken some 8 months earlier at least.
But a cardigan would have been good for Maddie to have on the third of May 07. A week which wasn't very warm at all, it even rained.
Different weather, different times and in recall, different colours.

The pink dress was headlined at least once as the reason why Maddie was selected by the abductor.

If we compare that dress with the red dress she wears in the 'birthday photos' it's evident that the red dress is far too big for her, but in those photographs it also looks as if the pink dress would be too small at that time.

Tigger , I think the pink was a top , iirc she states how lovely MMC looked in her pink top and brodaire anglaise shorts , I do not have the book but if someone could check I think she described the clothes as those, she was admiring her and thought that perhaps come paedo was admiring her too , this would need to be checked though [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] she mentions Monsoon and Gap iirc

@ tuom. I just looked at the photograph and it's definitely a little sundress. The shorts are just visible underneath .

This is from the book:
Some images are etched for all time on my brain. Madeleine that lunchtime is one of them. She was wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday: a peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon – a small extravagance, perhaps, but I’d pictured how lovely she would look in them and I’d been right. She was striding ahead of Fiona and me, swinging her bare arms to and fro. The weather was a little on the cool side and I remember thinking I should have brought a cardigan for her, although she seemed oblivious of the temperature, just happy and carefree. I was following her with my eyes, admiring her. I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same.
unquote

It's strange that she calls it a smock top, doesn't look smocked to me and it's definitely pink, not apricot. It's Amelie who's wearing an apricot coloured top.

Note the temperature remark, the wrong colour and that top would have come to mid thigh like a short summer dress.
Also note the 'someone else' admiring Maddie.

tigger wrote:@ tuom. I just looked at the photograph and it's definitely a little sundress. The shorts are just visible underneath .

This is from the book:
Some images are etched for all time on my brain. Madeleine that lunchtime is one of them. She was wearing an outfit I’d bought especially for her holiday: a peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon – a small extravagance, perhaps, but I’d pictured how lovely she would look in them and I’d been right. She was striding ahead of Fiona and me, swinging her bare arms to and fro. The weather was a little on the cool side and I remember thinking I should have brought a cardigan for her, although she seemed oblivious of the temperature, just happy and carefree. I was following her with my eyes, admiring her. I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same.
unquote

It's strange that she calls it a smock top, doesn't look smocked to me and it's definitely pink, not apricot. It's Amelie who's wearing an apricot coloured top.

Note the temperature remark, the wrong colour and that top would have come to mid thigh like a short summer dress.
Also note the 'someone else' admiring Maddie.

Thanks ! Tigger , It's amazing that she could get the colour wrong , especially as that photograph is their last memory !! there was an opening there to check those clothes , but of course their financial files were not handed over and they had no credit cards !!![You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

The shoe with the toe cut out is from the Panorama documentary 19/11/07.

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

The next one is from GerryMcCannsblog.

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

I'm just posting this, because we might well extend the clothes question to the twins.

As I am convinced the pool photo has Amelie pasted in at age 2 years 3 months (she looks exactly right for that) and Maddie, I am now convinced, is presented to us at age 3+ at least 7 months earlier than her age in PdL in 2007, the pink top/dress and broderie anglaise shorts cannot have been in the suitcase in 2007 . They are not used or re-used - the pink dress was never in PdL in 2007 imo.

Amelie's T shirt is very big as can be seen from the sleeves and the length. So there is a pink and an apricot t shirt (see the last photo topic) which more or less fit Amelie as a top and there is a very large one that can be used as a short dress. All bought at the same time I think. All from 2007.

It seems quite ridiculous to me to cut out the toes to make sandals for Amelie. The diary tells of the terrible trip with the twins to buy sandals. (The twins cried in front of the photographers and they had to stop halfway to calm them down).
Perhaps they gave up and just cut the toes off their shoes.

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

As I recall - wasn't this part of a video where she was showing off her shoes? But I recall 'red shoes' not pink as I think these are.
This clip also shows the relative sizes of Maddie's foot and Amelie's. But the date of this video must be nearly a year before 3/5/07?

From the pink shoe in the post above, it is easy to see that Amelie could never have fitted or shared Maddie's sandals.

The video is claimed to be from Christmas 2006 - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Could the twins really have been almost two though? I think that the previous Christmas is more likely.

Jean wrote:The video is claimed to be from Christmas 2006 - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Could the twins really have been almost two though? I think that the previous Christmas is more likely.

Maddie could easily be 2 and 7 months there, could the twins be 11 months? I'd need a motherly advice on that. I think its' possible. It's certainly hard to imagine that Amelie would had advanced in four months to the pool picture. They certainly don't look as if they can walk.

They were toddling so I think it's possible that they were nearly 11 months old rather than nearly 23 months. Now compare them to the Donegal photos a little more than 3 months later - I'm having trouble with that timeline!

Jean wrote:They were toddling so I think it's possible that they were nearly 11 months old rather than nearly 23 months. Now compare them to the Donegal photos a little more than 3 months later - I'm having trouble with that timeline!

Oof! That's not possible! Do their parents have trouble remembering their birthdays? Perhaps we should help them.

It seems for some unfathomable reason the McCanns wanted us to think that Madeleine was smaller and younger looking than she was. The tennis court and playground photos (if genuine and the jury's out on that one) are the ones that I feel give the most accurate impression of her appearance, so it is really strange that the poolside photo was given such prominence when it did not show an up-to-date image of Madeleine.

I am inclined to believe the McCanns here. 11 months would be extremely young to be toddling properly. My daughter took her first few steps at 10 months but that was definitely considered to be advanced, and still mostly crawled for the next couple of months.