Opinions please

Jean wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:I do recall Madeleine's image as an artist's impression, based on published tennis photo. I've been looking for it, but it seems to have been wooshed from the net and only still exists in Himself's photoshop with Amaral. Pity, because the artist very well illustrated my own feelings, when I saw the tennis photo for the first time. As I said before: a child trying desperately to please the one who's taking the picture.

Here's a link to a Sun story about an artist's version (hideous in my opinion) of the tennis ball photo.

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

Note the comment from the McCanns' spokesman - indeed it's wicked that anyone other than them should make money out of Madeleine!

plebgate wrote:Hello my lovlies you may have noticed I am a new member here and having scrutinised posts here I wondered if you would give me your views on this post.
Please do not pick on me and please try and avoid sarcasm in your replies.

I noted earlier in the thread that a poster asked if anybody knew who "himself" was.

Just to say that has anybody ever considered himself may in fact be a herself. Of course I do not know who the blogger is but I have been reading himselfs blogs and they intrigue me. Wondered what anybody else thought.

Thank you hun(s).



Please also remember as I a new member not to pm admin and "accuse" me of taking the P out of any posters on the forum as I can tell you now I am not. I am just a houseperson who is interested in your thoughts.

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

Sorry admin but I can sometimes be a bit naughty but I am nice.

averageperson wrote:

plebgate wrote:Hello my lovlies you may have noticed I am a new member here and having scrutinised posts here I wondered if you would give me your views on this post.
Please do not pick on me and please try and avoid sarcasm in your replies.

I noted earlier in the thread that a poster asked if anybody knew who "himself" was.

Just to say that has anybody ever considered himself may in fact be a herself. Of course I do not know who the blogger is but I have been reading himselfs blogs and they intrigue me. Wondered what anybody else thought.

Thank you hun(s).



Please also remember as I a new member not to pm admin and "accuse" me of taking the P out of any posters on the forum as I can tell you now I am not. I am just a houseperson who is interested in your thoughts.

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

Sorry admin but I can sometimes be a bit naughty but I am nice.

Ridiculous! Himself could have been GA, that was my meaning. I have never read the blog, I just liked the picture, Infact I thought it was in GA's book..

Such a suspicious mind. too suspicious.
The message at the top of this forum asks "Why not join our forum and help search for the truth", yet new members are met with suspicion by some and made to feel unwelcome.
Maybe if you were a little less suspicious, more people would come and more would stay.

Châtelaine wrote:Seems we're talking two different subjects, JD [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Anyway, I'm happy Jean found the picture I was looking for.

Nina wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Seems we're talking two different subjects, JD [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Anyway, I'm happy Jean found the picture I was looking for.

Yes and look at her thin little legs and pinchy toes in those blooming sandles that Kate thought were so very suitable for running around a tennis court. I bet she didn't wear anything similar when she was playing tennis.
That painting is, imo, a very realistic reproduction of the sweet child with a nervous smile and a hunched tight body posture. And don't anyone try to say she was rigid so as not to drop the balls, she has the same look as she does on other photos, lost.

bobbin wrote:

averageperson wrote:

plebgate wrote:Hello my lovlies you may have noticed I am a new member here and having scrutinised posts here I wondered if you would give me your views on this post.
Please do not pick on me and please try and avoid sarcasm in your replies.

I noted earlier in the thread that a poster asked if anybody knew who "himself" was.

Just to say that has anybody ever considered himself may in fact be a herself. Of course I do not know who the blogger is but I have been reading himselfs blogs and they intrigue me. Wondered what anybody else thought.

Thank you hun(s).



Please also remember as I a new member not to pm admin and "accuse" me of taking the P out of any posters on the forum as I can tell you now I am not. I am just a houseperson who is interested in your thoughts.

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

Sorry admin but I can sometimes be a bit naughty but I am nice.

Ridiculous! Himself could have been GA, that was my meaning. I have never read the blog, I just liked the picture, Infact I thought it was in GA's book..

Such a suspicious mind. too suspicious.
The message at the top of this forum asks "Why not join our forum and help search for the truth", yet new members are met with suspicion by some and made to feel unwelcome.
Maybe if you were a little less suspicious, more people would come and more would stay.

Serious posters like plebgate join and stay because they are interested in getting justice for Madeleine and contribute material and thoughts to the forum. People who just demand, but give nothing back, and complain about being unfairly treated must ask themselves if they are here to get justice for Madeleine or here to disrupt.

candyfloss wrote:Please no more arguments. The mods and admin are here to decide who is who, if anyone has problems then take it to pm with admin or mods, and let's keep this forum free from all this. Thank you for your co-operation.

averageperson wrote:

bobbin wrote:

averageperson wrote:

plebgate wrote:Hello my lovlies you may have noticed I am a new member here and having scrutinised posts here I wondered if you would give me your views on this post.
Please do not pick on me and please try and avoid sarcasm in your replies.

I noted earlier in the thread that a poster asked if anybody knew who "himself" was.

Just to say that has anybody ever considered himself may in fact be a herself. Of course I do not know who the blogger is but I have been reading himselfs blogs and they intrigue me. Wondered what anybody else thought.

Thank you hun(s).



Please also remember as I a new member not to pm admin and "accuse" me of taking the P out of any posters on the forum as I can tell you now I am not. I am just a houseperson who is interested in your thoughts.

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

Sorry admin but I can sometimes be a bit naughty but I am nice.

Ridiculous! Himself could have been GA, that was my meaning. I have never read the blog, I just liked the picture, Infact I thought it was in GA's book..

Such a suspicious mind. too suspicious.
The message at the top of this forum asks "Why not join our forum and help search for the truth", yet new members are met with suspicion by some and made to feel unwelcome.
Maybe if you were a little less suspicious, more people would come and more would stay.

Serious posters like plebgate join and stay because they are interested in getting justice for Madeleine and contribute material and thoughts to the forum. People who just demand, but give nothing back, and complain about being unfairly treated must ask themselves if they are here to get justice for Madeleine or here to disrupt.

I am misguided. I thought this place was to help discover the truth. How can that be done without asking. Yet to come here to do so, means you are tarnished as disruptive, or that you have other motives. I did not make demands, what am I, a blackmailer or something now. I asked for opinions. I thought I may have contributed in some small way, but I am still learning or trying to learn myself.
I do not know what sick people you know, but most that I encounter are not that devious and so unkind as to decide to "disrupt" a forum, based on the fate of a little 3 year old girl.. As a mother I find this not just insulting to be accused of this, but as a normal human with a kind heart, I find it abhorrent. I found that picture on what I thought was a different site. Someone else stayed it was from "Himself".
I simply looked at google images.

What is happening here is a normal eager to understand the facts, person, coming into this very late granted, is searching for aid & knowledge to learn more & from some here getting it and helping me so thank you.

It almost seems to me that others are purposely trying to force newcomers out.

Nina wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Seems we're talking two different subjects, JD [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Anyway, I'm happy Jean found the picture I was looking for.

Yes and look at her thin little legs and pinchy toes in those blooming sandles that Kate thought were so very suitable for running around a tennis court. I bet she didn't wear anything similar when she was playing tennis.
That painting is, imo, a very realistic reproduction of the sweet child with a nervous smile and a hunched tight body posture. And don't anyone try to say she was rigid so as not to drop the balls, she has the same look as she does on other photos, lost.

jd wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

jd wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:A million thank you's jd! Takes so long to go through everything, but I have mentioned this several times.
I think it proves something is very wrong that so many people claimed to have taken it and on different days.
You are a star!

RF....They are not inconsistent on an hour or so time, but different days!! All of them!!

I know! And anyone with the nous to notice and dare question it we are 'haters', or worse for some, gagged and sued...

Trying to put myself in KMcC's shoes, had I been so touched by that photo and had taken it on my camera, that is what I would have released!
But not Kate because it appears they had plenty of copies of an old photo to hand.....

How all these FACTS are not red flags to some people I will NEVER understand...

If I remember correctly, gerry mccann says in interviews that the poolside photo is his most precious memory photo of Maddie. Yet when the wallet was snatched at Waterloo station, it was a photo taken from a Christening a month or 2 earlier that was his most sacred photo of Maddie!!! (the photo nobody has ever seen & could have been used for the photos of who to look for)...The fact he had no sacred photos of the twins in his wallet is another issue!!

rainbow-fairy wrote:

jd wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

jd wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:A million thank you's jd! Takes so long to go through everything, but I have mentioned this several times.
I think it proves something is very wrong that so many people claimed to have taken it and on different days.
You are a star! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

RF....They are not inconsistent on an hour or so time, but different days!! All of them!!

I know! And anyone with the nous to notice and dare question it we are 'haters', or worse for some, gagged and sued...

Trying to put myself in KMcC's shoes, had I been so touched by that photo and had taken it on my camera, that is what I would have released!
But not Kate because it appears they had plenty of copies of an old photo to hand.....

How all these FACTS are not red flags to some people I will NEVER understand... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

If I remember correctly, gerry mccann says in interviews that the poolside photo is his most precious memory photo of Maddie. Yet when the wallet was snatched at Waterloo station, it was a photo taken from a Christening a month or 2 earlier that was his most sacred photo of Maddie!!! (the photo nobody has ever seen & could have been used for the photos of who to look for)...The fact he had no sacred photos of the twins in his wallet is another issue!!

Oh yes I'd forgotten about that one! Your most cherished memory isn't of a photo fgs! I have a beautiful picture of my Dad, holding a carp he'd caught, in a metal frame. Would I EVER refer to that as my 'last memory' or 'cherished memory' - no way! You remember silly things that were said and done.

That and the fact it appeared so late! WHY? And why did pool pic appear AFTER Gerry had returned to the UK?
I'm sure I have NO idea [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Newintown wrote:Looking back on the pool pic I have thought for a while that the child's body with Madeleine's head on it is not Madeleine's body. What Mother of a cherished missing daughter wouldn't even remember what colour the dress was when it was especially bought for the holiday as K McCann went into detail about, the only reason I can think of is because Kate McCann didn't even buy the dress with the white frilly lace shorts but it was another Mother who bought them for her own child.

Wouldn't the dress now be hanging up in Madeleine's wardrobe at home as it would have been packed up with the families clothes brought back from PDL. How can she not remember what colour it is????

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Newintown wrote:Looking back on the pool pic I have thought for a while that the child's body with Madeleine's head on it is not Madeleine's body. What Mother of a cherished missing daughter wouldn't even remember what colour the dress was when it was especially bought for the holiday as K McCann went into detail about, the only reason I can think of is because Kate McCann didn't even buy the dress with the white frilly lace shorts but it was another Mother who bought them for her own child.

Wouldn't the dress now be hanging up in Madeleine's wardrobe at home as it would have been packed up with the families clothes brought back from PDL. How can she not remember what colour it is????

IIRC, the clothes description didn't make an appearance until 'the bewk', like the 'out searching at 4am'
IMO, when Kate goes to great lengths to tell us something really unimportant, eg the clothes were 'an extravagance but worth it' it is because she is papering over cracks that would blow their story open.
The 4am was because I believe they had been seen out and HAD to provide an explanation. The clothes - same. So that is a red flag re last photo. Was is Maddie but taken at a different time period? Different child? Its odd because AMELIE is the one wearing 'peach' in pool pic. 'Maddie' v clearly light pink.
So. SOMETHING important there, Kate covering their butts - but what???

As an aside, I find the description of Maddie in her new clothes utterly [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Newintown wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Newintown wrote:Looking back on the pool pic I have thought for a while that the child's body with Madeleine's head on it is not Madeleine's body. What Mother of a cherished missing daughter wouldn't even remember what colour the dress was when it was especially bought for the holiday as K McCann went into detail about, the only reason I can think of is because Kate McCann didn't even buy the dress with the white frilly lace shorts but it was another Mother who bought them for her own child.

Wouldn't the dress now be hanging up in Madeleine's wardrobe at home as it would have been packed up with the families clothes brought back from PDL. How can she not remember what colour it is????

IIRC, the clothes description didn't make an appearance until 'the bewk', like the 'out searching at 4am'
IMO, when Kate goes to great lengths to tell us something really unimportant, eg the clothes were 'an extravagance but worth it' it is because she is papering over cracks that would blow their story open.
The 4am was because I believe they had been seen out and HAD to provide an explanation. The clothes - same. So that is a red flag re last photo. Was is Maddie but taken at a different time period? Different child? Its odd because AMELIE is the one wearing 'peach' in pool pic. 'Maddie' v clearly light pink.
So. SOMETHING important there, Kate covering their butts - but what???

As an aside, I find the description of Maddie in her new clothes utterly [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That's what I was thinking. I love Monsoon clothes but didn't even buy them for myself even when I was working and was earning a good salary, I would only think about it if it was for a special occasion i.e. a birthday or wedding "do". They were too damn expensive and not very robust. Which Mother in their right mind would buy a Monsoon outfit for a 3 year old to wear on a sun/sand/sea holiday in Portugal. Most Mothers would go to somewhere cheap and cheerful so it didn't matter whether the clothes got damaged, dirty etc. The sort of outfit on the girl in the pool pic would be something brought as a bridesmaid outfit or for a special function, definitely not a seaside holiday, especially when the poor kid was actually stuck in the play group all day and was supposedly put to bed at 7.30 every night.

tigger wrote:I can't find it just now, but someone posted not long ago about the line in Kate's book :

.'... 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.'

This is Kate seeing her daughter from her point of view 'admiring' her (weird description again but we're used to that) but why is she now intimating that a paedophile is doing the same - thinking the same as she was?
She would be 'admiring' her daughter in quite a different way one hopes than a paedophile would.

The whole thing about this outfit - it was used extensively in the press - was that Kate thought it was because of that outfit that she was abducted.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

ETA: please excuse my spelling and typo's in my post before this one - if an admin could alter them that'd be fantastic. That'll teach me to try and do 100 things at once! Noticed too late to edit myself

rainbow-fairy wrote:

tigger wrote:I can't find it just now, but someone posted not long ago about the line in Kate's book :

.'... 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.'

This is Kate seeing her daughter from her point of view 'admiring' her (weird description again but we're used to that) but why is she now intimating that a paedophile is doing the same - thinking the same as she was?
She would be 'admiring' her daughter in quite a different way one hopes than a paedophile would.

The whole thing about this outfit - it was used extensively in the press - was that Kate thought it was because of that outfit that she was abducted.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Yep tigger, it was plastered everywhere.
Seems utterly perverse to me that it was suggested she was 'abducted' because of a very run-of-the-mill girls outfit.
Kates description of 'following her with my eyes' I can't read without gagging. I've often had my boys dressed up nice, but I can honestly say I've NEVER 'admired them and followed them with my eyes' and wondered if a paedophile may be doing that also! I've looked at my boys and felt proud, but that's it!
Tbh imo Kates description shows a very disturbed, if not sick, mind. Thank you for the link tigger.

ETA: please excuse my spelling and typo's in my post before this one - if an admin could alter them that'd be fantastic. That'll teach me to try and do 100 things at once! Noticed too late to edit myself