Maddie and the eye - Why do they lie

by **PeterMac** 24.07.13 8:54

"We never called her Maddie"
"To be honest, we didn't make much of [the coloboma]"

What is the purpose of lying about these two things

19th May - Cup Final
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />" />" />

The video must have been organised and created at least a week before.

by russiandoll 24.07.13 9:08

God alone knows why. Interesting that they always talk about they key to this and the key to that and the coloboma is shaped like a key.
They aren't playing games with us are they? Because they play games, Dianne Webster said so.

by Guest 24.07.13 9:22

Anything prefixed by "to be honest" is we know going to be the most humongous lie.

I can't fathom out though why the McCanns had such a drastic U-turn on this issue though - it's nearly as odd as if they suddenly declared that Madeleine wasn't abducted by a stranger after all.

At least we know why the McCanns didn't get off their backsides to look for their daughter; they were too busy getting the fund started and organising videos.

by **PeterMac** 24.07.13 9:41

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Anything prefixed by "to be honest" is we know going to be the most humongous lie.
I can't fathom out though why the McCanns had such a drastic U-turn on this issue though - it's nearly as odd as if they suddenly declared that Madeleine wasn't abducted by a stranger after all.

That is the part that bothers me.
I can understand lying about the abduction - to cover up something else
I can understand lying about checking the children regularly - to cover up gross neglect
I can understand lying about jemmied shutters, and open / shut / windows and curtains - to try to make it look as if someone had entered

Those lies all fall into the category of things said with a clear purpose.

But the "Maddie and coloboma" lie serves no purpose, so far as I can see, and is so obviously a lie, and so easily demonstrable as such
that its presence casts a shadow over everything else they have ever said, or ever will say.
So why ?

Kevin- any ideas ?

by espeland 24.07.13 10:14

But the "Maddie and coloboma" lie serves no purpose, so far as I can see, and is so obviously a lie, and so easily demonstrable as such that its presence casts a shadow over everything else they have ever said, or ever will say.
So why ?

Makes me wonder if she's still alive and the McCanns don't want her found or, if she's dead, perhaps the McCanns don't want to be inundated with false sightings - only those raised by the pink one are acceptable/controllable.

by **tigger** 24.07.13 11:31

espeland wrote:But the "Maddie and coloboma" lie serves no purpose, so far as I can see, and is so obviously a lie, and so easily demonstrable as such that its presence casts a shadow over everything else they have ever said, or ever will say.
So why ?

Makes me wonder if she's still alive and the McCanns don't want her found or, if she's dead, perhaps the McCanns don't want to be inundated with false sightings - only those raised by the pink one are acceptable/controllable.

(I need your avatar to cool off!)

It's very simple: they created a girl with a unique marker - in essence this girl didn't exist. So the whole world looking for Maddie would not find a child that looked like the photographs.
It would make it easier to discount sightings and no need to fly all over the world to go and identify the wrong girls.
It had the added bonus of the USP - the Unique Selling Point. Brilliant marketing.

By 2011 - perhaps they needed a boost to the sightings. The Leh sighting made no mention of the coloboma and neither have the majority of other sightings. Only the NZ recent sighting was 'developed' and only because the report particularly stated the presence of the coloboma. As far as I know, there has never been a request from the McCanns regarding a sighting whether the girl in question did have a coloboma. Or for that matter, a mark on her left leg.

by Guest 24.07.13 11:51

Am I right in saying that the truthful book makes no mention whatsoever of the coloboma? It was first published in 2011 which ties in with the interview in which the giant U-turn was made.

by **PeterMac** 24.07.13 12:30

That is right. No mention of "coloboma", eye defect, iris, or pupil - in that context

by MrsC 24.07.13 12:40

How/why they get away with telling this lie is what bugs me.

by tasprin 24.07.13 14:43

PeterMac wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Anything prefixed by "to be honest" is we know going to be the most humongous lie.
I can't fathom out though why the McCanns had such a drastic U-turn on this issue though - it's nearly as odd as if they suddenly declared that Madeleine wasn't abducted by a stranger after all.

That is the part that bothers me.
I can understand lying about the abduction - to cover up something else
I can understand lying about checking the children regularly - to cover up gross neglect
I can understand lying about jemmied shutters, and open / shut / windows and curtains - to try to make it look as if someone had entered

Those lies all fall into the category of things said with a clear purpose.

But the "Maddie and coloboma" lie serves no purpose, so far as I can see, and is so obviously a lie, and so easily demonstrable as such
that its presence casts a shadow over everything else they have ever said, or ever will say.
So why ?

Kevin- any ideas ?

Kate McCann dismissed the eye defect as a just a fleck on the Piers Morgan chat show and IIRC this was after the review was announced. I thought perhaps the McCanns may have been preparing for any eventuality and decided to downplay the eye in case Scotland Yard were really conducting a genuine review. They might have discovered that Madeleine never had a coloboma, or even a mark in her eye. Perhaps it really was just a marketing ploy.

The other possibility is that over the years 'searchers' have been getting too close to other peoples children in their efforts to establish whether the child they think is Madeleine has the famous coloboma. It's surprising some kind of catastrophe involving another child has not already happened, but there has been some near misses.

by lj 24.07.13 15:10

tigger wrote:
espeland wrote:But the "Maddie and coloboma" lie serves no purpose, so far as I can see, and is so obviously a lie, and so easily demonstrable as such that its presence casts a shadow over everything else they have ever said, or ever will say.
So why ?

Makes me wonder if she's still alive and the McCanns don't want her found or, if she's dead, perhaps the McCanns don't want to be inundated with false sightings - only those raised by the pink one are acceptable/controllable.

(I need your avatar to cool off!)

It's very simple: they created a girl with a unique marker - in essence this girl didn't exist. So the whole world looking for Maddie would not find a child that looked like the photographs.
It would make it easier to discount sightings and no need to fly all over the world to go and identify the wrong girls.
It had the added bonus of the USP - the Unique Selling Point. Brilliant marketing.

By 2011 - perhaps they needed a boost to the sightings. The Leh sighting made no mention of the coloboma and neither have the majority of other sightings. Only the NZ recent sighting was 'developed' and only because the report particularly stated the presence of the coloboma. As far as I know, there has never been a request from the McCanns regarding a sighting whether the girl in question did have a coloboma. Or for that matter, a mark on her left leg.

Hi Tigger! wave

That's one version I agree with. The reason to backtrack is that it became known that PJ advised them to not publish the unique eye feature, because that might sign Madeleine's death warrant.

They always try to protect themselves against any possible recrimination. Were they only as protective of their children!

Whatever way you look at it: for a doctor (and we have 2 here that call themselves doctor) to either make up a diagnosis or to obscure a diagnosis is a very serious transgression. So whatever way they lie it it shows them for the amoral people they are.

Last but not least: I have always thought they are narcissistic sociopaths, Kate even more than Gerry. Those people lie, and not always to achieve something. They often lie just because they are not capable of speaking the truth. If you go over all their interviews, statements, blog posts and book, you'll see there are quite a few lies that serve no purpose, unless there is a whole lot more muck to be uncovered.

by tiny 24.07.13 16:08

MrsC wrote:How/why they get away with telling this lie is what bugs me.

because they can,and they will continue with the lies until some one stops them,but up till now no one has the guts to ask them any hard questions and I suspect
no one ever will.

by **PeterMac** 24.07.13 16:49

tasprin wrote:
Kate McCann dismissed the eye defect as a just a fleck on the Piers Morgan chat show and IIRC this was after the review was announced. I thought perhaps the McCanns may have been preparing for any eventuality and decided to downplay the eye in case Scotland Yard were really conducting a genuine review. They might have discovered that Madeleine never had a coloboma, or even a mark in her eye.

Or possibly that one of the team would be given the brief to research the medical history - certainly very likely - and would come up with theXO Turner stuff we discussed al those years ago. And would then demand to see the medial records, and would propose the obvious death by ruptured aortic aneurism.
But that doesn't explain why doctors would not throw themselves on the mercy of the public in that sad circumstance.

The other possibility is that over the years 'searchers' have been getting too close to other peoples children in their efforts to establish whether the child they think is Madeleine has the famous coloboma. It's surprising some kind of catastrophe involving another child has not already happened, but there has been some near misses.

Even more strange, when we look at clarence Mitchell lies over the Leh sighting, talking about photos being sent from rural India to Rothley for identification, and `DNA and all sorts of other rot, when he could simply have asked the Police officer concerned to look closely into the eye and explain what he saw.
Except that of course there was no officer. There was no girl to look at, and there was no DNA. The whole thing was a fabrication.

by tasprin 24.07.13 17:23

PeterMac wrote:
tasprin wrote:
Kate McCann dismissed the eye defect as a just a fleck on the Piers Morgan chat show and IIRC this was after the review was announced. I thought perhaps the McCanns may have been preparing for any eventuality and decided to downplay the eye in case Scotland Yard were really conducting a genuine review. They might have discovered that Madeleine never had a coloboma, or even a mark in her eye.
Or possibly that one of the team would be given the brief to research the medical history - certainly very likely - and would come up with theXO Turner stuff we discussed al those years ago. And would then demand to see the medial records, and would propose the obvious death by ruptured aortic aneurism.

Yes, I agree Peter, If the review is genuine there's a strong likelihood SY would want to access medical records and who knows what that might turn up.

But that doesn't explain why doctors would not throw themselves on the mercy of the public in that sad circumstance.

There must be another factor involved

Kate McCann's blatantly dishonest claim that they didn't make much of Madeleine's eye is blatantly dishonest and I wonder what SY's thoughts on that are - It's so easy to disprove

The other possibility is that over the years 'searchers' have been getting too close to other peoples children in their efforts to establish whether the child they think is Madeleine has the famous coloboma. It's surprising some kind of catastrophe involving another child has not already happened, but there has been some near misses.

Even more strange, when we look at clarence Mitchell lies over the Leh sighting, talking about photos being sent from rural India to Rothley for identification, and `DNA and all sorts of other rot, when he could simply have asked the Police officer concerned to look closely into the eye and explain what he saw.
Except that of course there was no officer. There was no girl to look at, and there was no DNA. The whole thing was a fabrication.

Yes, a simple matter of the (phantom) police officer checking for the coloboma. The sightings have become so ludicrous that they have to be staged further and further afield to avoid too much scrutiny. However, judging from the Leh sighting, that strategy hasn't worked very well.

I wonder what SY's thoughts are on Kate McCann's audaciously dishonest claim that they didn't make much of Madeleine's eye defect - it's so easy to disprove.

-----

Please read and pass this email on to everyone in your address book, it could cover 80 of the world's inboxes in 2 weeks. Too often we hear of the harm that the internet can have on young people. Now we have a chance to use its powers to try to help this case.

Madeleine McCann is a four year old English girl who was abducted from Praia Da Luz, Portugal on 03/05/2007 during a family holiday. They believe a new picture of the missing child could play a vital role in the search for her. The photo of the youngster shows clearly her distinctive right eye, where the pupil runs into the blue-green iris.

It is this distinguishing mark that will identify Madeleine to those on the lookout for her, according to aunt and uncle John and Diane McCann. The Glasgow couple aim to distribute the appeal poster, as far a field as they can. Support for the search has been "overwhelming" and her family are extremely grateful.

Her right eye: [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mrs [Diane] McCann said: "The purpose of the poster is to highlight the distinction in Madeleine's eye. We want to make the most of it, because we know her hair could potentially be cut or dyed." Mr [John] McCann added: "The poster was designed by a friend of the family and I've begun Emailing it to acquaintances in different parts of the world. I'm asking people to circulate it the best they can and make it be seen." Madeleine's Eye Holds a Vital Clue.
The international number for Crime stoppers is +44 1883 731 336. People with information about Madeleine's whereabouts or any suspected sightings can call anonymously.

You can also visit the official website at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Thanks for your help
------

Wikipedia - Response to the disappearance of Madeleine Mccann
‘Carlos Anjos, president of the Association of Criminal Investigation Staff, criticised the McCanns, on 6 November, for creating a "monster of information" that hindered the investigation. He also stated that they should not have publicised the coloboma in her right eye which he claimed put the life of the girl at risk.[138] This was echoed by Fernando José Pinto Monteiro, the Attorney General, who said that, if she had been abducted, the worldwide campaign would have turned Madeleine into a liability and that it was likely that her abductor had already killed her.[139]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **PeterMac** 24.07.13 17:35

Quite.
I find the sudden attempted backtrack very strange indeed.
Most of the other lies I can understand.
They serve a purpose, in that if you believe them, then you may believe that Madeline was abducted by a predatory Paed***, or a childless family, or for some other purpose depending which lie you were closest to.
Or you might believe she is living aboard a luxury yacht inAustralia, or in a Hellish Lair in the Lawless Hinterland, aka. just behind the golf course.
It is for the moment irrelevant that there are so many versions - in fact that may be part of the deliberate process, to put many different versions out, so that each person can choose the one which most closely conforms with her / his wishes or views.
All have the same theme, however, that Madeleine is Alive and you should therefore continue to give money.

But the attempt about-face of the coloboma doesn't fit any of these.
And neither does the "we never called her Maddie"
They seem to serve no purpose, and merely expose the McCanns as liars. And liars who lie without any apparent reason to do so.

And all of whose other statements may be judged against this fact !

by tasprin 24.07.13 19:04

PeterMac wrote:Quite.
I find the sudden attempted backtrack very strange indeed.
Most of the other lies I can understand.
They serve a purpose, in that if you believe them, then you may believe that Madeline was abducted by a predatory Paed***, or a childless family, or for some other purpose depending which lie you were closest to.
Or you might believe she is living aboard a luxury yacht inAustralia, or in a Hellish Lair in the Lawless Hinterland, aka. just behind the golf course.
It is for the moment irrelevant that there are so many versions - in fact that may be part of the deliberate process, to put many different versions out, so that each person can choose the one which most closely conforms with her / his wishes or views.

IMO, I think the main purpose of all the conflicting statements was to muddy the waters as much as they could - causing total confusion is a good way to bury the truth. If your child had been abducted you'd be as clear and precise as possible in both your dealings with the police and the media. Of course continually insisting she's alive and being held in one or other of the locations you mention above, keeps the money pouring in.

All have the same theme, however, that Madeleine is Alive and you should therefore continue to give money.

It's the end of the gravy train once it's acknowledged Madeleine is no longer alive

But the attempt about-face of the coloboma doesn't fit any of these.

No, unless they're backtracking because it was a lie and they know or suspect someone is/was unto them. And if the coloboma was fabricated as a marketing ploy then the entire Find Maddie industry was/is a huge con and would mean Madeleine was not abducted at all. No parent would tell such a lie about something so important and send people on a wild goose chase looking for a child that didn't exist if they knew their abducted daughter was out there somewhere - they'd only do that if they knew she wasn't.

And neither does the "we never called her Maddie"
They seem to serve no purpose, and merely expose the McCanns as liars. And liars who lie without any apparent reason to do so.

And all of whose other statements may be judged against this fact !

The 'Maddie' thing is strange. Maybe they remembered an incident where someone called her name out loud and were worried someone else may have heard too (Daddy, Daddy on Tuesday night, or was it Maddy, Maddy. I can't remember when they first started insisting she was never called Maddie but another thought is, I wonder if it had anything to do with the publication of Amaral's book 'Maddie. The Truth of the Lie' (did they actually get wind of the title well in advance of the publication). I don't know what that lie is about, except that it is a lie.

by View-from-Ireland 24.07.13 20:21

I would argue that the average, shall we say 'casual observer', would probably have Madeleine's coloboma in their mind as one of her most distinctive characteristics. The parents really did make a huge deal out of her eye and I think it would come to a surprise to a lot of people if they were told that the parents now play this down and deny making it a huge issue.

It is certainly one of the strangest aspects of this whole case.

by **PeterMac** 24.07.13 20:46

View-from-Ireland wrote:I would argue that the average, shall we say 'casual observer', would probably have Madeleine's coloboma in their mind as one of her most distinctive characteristics. The parents really did make a huge deal out of her eye and I think it would come to a surprise to a lot of people if they were told that the parents now play this down and deny making it a huge issue.
It is certainly one of the strangest aspects of this whole case.

It is the lead item of the front of the book. How can she simultaneously say they didn't make much of it.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

by **tigger** 24.07.13 20:55

Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”

Vanity Fair interview September 2007.

Never, never forget this uncontested interview. Vanity Fair was never sued. This paragraph tells you all you need to know about her parents.

by View-from-Ireland 24.07.13 21:08

PeterMac wrote:
View-from-Ireland wrote:I would argue that the average, shall we say 'casual observer', would probably have Madeleine's coloboma in their mind as one of her most distinctive characteristics. The parents really did make a huge deal out of her eye and I think it would come to a surprise to a lot of people if they were told that the parents now play this down and deny making it a huge issue.
It is certainly one of the strangest aspects of this whole case.
It is the lead item of the front of the book. How can she simultaneously say they didn't make much of it.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

That photo is the one everybody thinks of when they think of Madeleine. That was the image that came to define 'Maddie' and that it is a defining image is proven by the fact that Kate uses it on the cover of the book.

What then, is the most striking feature of that image? Maybe it's just me but I am always drawn to her right eye because it just is such a distinctive feature.

How they think they can backtrack on this is quite baffling. And, more to the point, why have they been backtracking on this? They can't later plead that they did so for Madeleine's well being as any potential damage as a result of highlighting the coloboma would have been long done.

by tasprin 24.07.13 21:11

tigger wrote:Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”

Vanity Fair interview September 2007.

Never, never forget this uncontested interview. Vanity Fair was never sued. This paragraph tells you all you need to know about her parents.

Chilling! And one of the reasons why I don't believe in the abduction theory. What parent would consider endangering their child's life in an effort to recover her alive? It doesn't make sense.

by Guest 24.07.13 21:58

Even more bizarrely, as confirmed earlier, there is no mention of the eye defect in the book itself yet the photo on the front shows it clearly.

by Woofer 24.07.13 22:30

I remember that on her passport under `distinguishing marks` it was not mentioned, only the mark on her leg. I`ve searched for that part of her passport but cannot find it now, only the first part with her photo,

by lj 24.07.13 22:51

tasprin wrote:
tigger wrote:Although initially reluctant, the McCanns finally informed the media of Madeleine’s unique right eye—a risky revelation. Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.

Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”

Vanity Fair interview September 2007.

Never, never forget this uncontested interview. Vanity Fair was never sued. This paragraph tells you all you need to know about her parents.

Chilling! And one of the reasons why I don't believe in the abduction theory. What parent would consider endangering their child's life in an effort to recover her alive? It doesn't make sense.

The same parents that endangered the life of all three children by leaving them alone night after night, even after being asked "why didn't you come when we were crying?"

The same parents that said "And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"

I hope anyone who still doubts they are psychopaths can come up with a "reasonable" explanation for such behavior.

by suzyjohnson 25.07.13 2:17

Well my guess is that, at first, whilst they were engaged with their 'leaving no stone unturned' campaign that it was, as GM says 'a good marketing ploy'

But, as Tigger points out, making a lot of the coloboma would endanger MM's life. Would any parent choose to highlight such a distinctive feature in that case?

Of course, taking that course of action would be irrelevant if they already knew that their child was not alive (a bit like choosing not to take part in the reconstruction)

As someone else said too, a search for a child with a coloboma has the added advantage of less sightings to be investigated.

At this stage though, the McCanns were not suspects. By November, when they had become arguidos and when the police were openly criticising the McCanns for publicising the coloboma, and everything had gone so badly wrong with the media, it starts to become as clear to the McCanns as it does to us that the parents of an abducted child would be very unlikely to make such a reckless decision as to draw attention to a coloboma - unless, of course, they already knew that child was not in any danger.

And so, they play the coloboma bit down. They don't want to talk about it any more.