Re: Anyone for scraps?

by Guest 25.10.13 13:37

There's a photo of Gerry as a boy on this clip.

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

Juliet: you must mean Christmas 2006.

I'm not even sure if the football shirt photos are of Madeleine, she looks so different.

by Daisy 25.10.13 13:51

juliet wrote:Daisy - yes, what would be the point?
But I think it's unarguable that the photo has been manipulated, like so many involving this family. I remember big discussions about one with granny and grandad Healey on a sofa with the children, which was very shopped.

I dunno Juliet, I'll have to bow out of this one. I'm pretty rubbish at spotting photoshop images anyway.

by Sparrow 25.10.13 14:03

I remember seeing the photo at the time; it was in the early weeks. It was a shot from the waist up, of the Dr Mc struggling with a fridge. It's possible I dreamed it, of course, as I've never seen it referenced by anyone else (only the apparently deleted blog fridge story, which I never saw, though I did read the blog - just must have missed that entry).. It was so early on, whilst sympathy was high - it was probably before people began saving every file and photo related to the case. It struck me as odd that anyone would bother messing about with a landlord's fridge when it wasn't his responsibility, and while his daughter was missing and his wife distraught. There was no suggestion of anything being suspicious or amiss - the story was simply that he was disposing of the fridge, which had broken down, as a favour to the landlord. It was online, in a national British newspaper, but I don't recall which one - possibly it was the Times Online or another broadsheet. Point is, that photo, if it exists, was likely taken by a journalist, and while the photo and story are no longer online, (and only if the story is true and was not imagined by so many people, including myself) then the fridge story was photographically documented, somewhere, by someone. If the fridge was real, there is likely to be little mystery regarding its existence and disposal, so far as the investigation is concerned , as any photos would likely be in their hands by now. There is so much we don't know about the investigation, and what information has not been released, has been withheld, or withdrawn from online circulation, at whose request, and for what reason. It would be horrible to be wrong, and merely add to the parents misery with questionable recollections - but many do seem convinced there was a fridge, a doctor and a blog entry - and if there was, then there will be photographs, as the resort was not short of a media presence at the time. So if it's true, it's sure to be in hand, and if it's not, there sure are a lot of delusional folk around.

by Sparrow 25.10.13 14:09

Why mess up threads with pointless photoshop distractions and references to David Icke? Is it meant to give out the message 'nutters here - read no further' - because obviously there is no point, no motive, for the McCanns, or anyone to randomly photoshop multiple images. Seems like a distraction tactic to me - distraction from what though - perhaps from the one image which actually might have been manipulated? 'Confusion is good', hey?

by **tigger** 25.10.13 14:35

Sparrow wrote:Why mess up threads with pointless photoshop distractions and references to David Icke? Is it meant to give out the message 'nutters here - read no further' - because obviously there is no point, no motive, for the McCanns, or anyone to randomly photoshop multiple images. Seems like a distraction tactic to me - distraction from what though - perhaps from the one image which actually might have been manipulated? 'Confusion is good', hey?

I do feel that someone with only 5 posts to his/her name would do well to research the matter raised by members with a long record of posts relevant to photoshopping.

I have noticed that it gets some people rather excited. But a photograph of Gerry struggling with a fridge is a new one on me. You may indeed have dreamt it, I think it's highly unlikely.

Btw you could have edited your 4th post to add your 5th.

by lj 25.10.13 16:30

Sparrow wrote:Hi, everyone - thanks for the replies. Yes, eventually, Gerry used the term 'coloboma', but that was only in order to say that he didn't think Madeleine had that condition, rather a fleck in the eye. That was much later on, and only after so many people online had been saying, for a long time, that it was a coloboma. It's most likely that the 'LOOK for Maddie's coloboma' poster didn't originate with Team McCann, and that it was an edited version of the 'LOOK for Maddie' poster, made by someone trying to be helpful. Doctors always try to simplify medical terms for the lay person, anyway, so even if it were a coloboma (which he disputes) it seems more likely they wouldn't have chosen to use the term themselves - and that Gerry did use the term in the Piers Morgan interview, seems almost like a concession to public opinion, but only in order to dispute the nature of the defect. But, oh yes, they did make a big deal of the distinctive eye as a 'marketing ploy' - I wasn't disputing that, only the claim that the parents had insisted on it being a coloboma, and calling it such, from the outset, when it was forums which settled upon that description over 'mark' or 'defect' long before Gerry used it himself.

Logically, it seems to me, that if Madeleine did have a coloboma (rather than a mark or defect that was more cosmetic, and didn't qualify as a true coloboma) that the parents would have been likely to capitalise further on it, as a precarious medical condition which might require specialist attention at any moment, and to plead for her immediate release on those grounds. It's only a detail in the vast sea of McCann information and misinformation, but still seems reasonable to point out that the misrepresentation is not all one sided throughout. I also don't recall Kate using the term in the book, or making anything of the eye as needing particular care or attention. So, IMO, the coloboma was 'diagnosed' by over-enthusiastic forum folk, and was not put forth by the parents.

It will probably become a relatively insignificant detail as events speed up, but if truth and accuracy are important, it's worth acknowledging that the coloboma claims originated in the forums and not with the parents. In that respect they did 'minimise' it by not referring to it as such (except in the negative, that she didn't have one) - which is to be expected in view of them not having claimed it was a coloboma, rather than a mark or defect. The impression was that the mark was cosmetic rather than a medical condition - if it had been a coloboma, they would have made more of it, and garnered more sympathy through it, as such a condition would likely need specialist checks and care.

I am very hopeful of SY and of the Portuguese having re-opened the case - I don't anticipate anything but them seeking to establish the truth with regard to what happened to Madeleine. It seems, from 'the night we found her' comment, that Gerry has already made that clear. SY and the Portuguese investigation are not likely to be overlooking such an admission from Gerry's own mouth. If Madeleine wasn't found dead (or dying), then her 'abduction' would have to have been the worse night of their lives - but apparently nothing was worse than the night they found her, not even the night she went missing, which leads to the possibility that those nights were likely one and the same. Just some thoughts.

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

It is probably on this forum too, but I keep on having problems with the search function here.

Anyway in July 2007 the family clearly describes and names the coloboma. So you imply by that time the family had themselves convinced of a incorrect diagnose of a nonexisting defect by over-enthusiastic forum folk?

I don't think so.

by Sparrow 25.10.13 16:35

I've followed it all carefully for years, tigger, and do find the idea that the McCanns would spend hours pointlessly changing photos for no discernible reason to be a bit unlikely. I agree that one, or two may have been altered - but as for the rest, I can't see any point, and sometimes it does give the impression of a conspiracy theorists outing. I think the ones worth looking at are the poolside one (hair bead/band) and the tennis court pic, to establish if it is actually the resort court (someone would need to go there and view the surfaces and courts from all angles to match it exactly to the picture, though probably the scuff in the surface has been repaired by now) - or if it was taken at an earlier date elsewhere. There was a very early suggestion that it had been taken on the holiday in Ireland, but that might only have been speculation.

Also, tigger, if there ever was a fridge, there is bound to be a photograph somewhere - how could there not be, the place was full of media people! So either there wasn't a fridge - or there was one - the Portuguese investigators believed Maddie's body had been frozen, so I'd say it's quite likely there was a fridge (maybe it was a small freezer) involved somewhere along the line. If Gerry's blog entry ever existed, and he took the often discussed fridge to the tip, there's likely to be more than one photo of him doing it. Whether anyone could make anything of it after such an interval, and without the fridge (though they may have recovered it, for all anyone knows) and therefore unable to establish that it was ever used to store a corpse, is a different matter. Interesting that the blog post, if it ever existed, was deleted though - same games for the photo, if it also ever existed online. :)

by Sparrow 25.10.13 16:40

'Madeleine's right eye has a type of coloboma, a complete split in the iris. This consists of a black radial strip reaching from the pupil out to the edge of the white at the 7 o'clock position, about 30º clockwise from the bottom.' Actually, that was written by the author, and not stated by the McCanns. She may have surmised it as a 'type of coloboma', or picked it up from forum discussion herself. I don't think you will find instances of the parents naming it as a coloboma. Only Gerry saying he doesn't think it is one.

by **tigger** 25.10.13 16:52

Sparrow wrote:'Madeleine's right eye has a type of coloboma, a complete split in the iris. This consists of a black radial strip reaching from the pupil out to the edge of the white at the 7 o'clock position, about 30º clockwise from the bottom.' Actually, that was written by the author, and not stated by the McCanns. She may have surmised it as a 'type of coloboma', or picked it up from forum discussion herself. I don't think you will find instances of the parents naming it as a coloboma. Only Gerry saying he doesn't think it is one.

If you don' t want to believe that rtensive photoshopping took place, then you must believe that the coloboma was there. Moreover, a unique coloboma which changes position and shape and on a few occasions isn't there at all.

Please don't say it's a trick of the light, only on camera does it seem large and dark, as that is not the case.
The coloboma was in fact a masterstroke in marketing. A unique selling point, they even tried to get google to include it in the logo.

So just to recap: no coloboma, just a fleck = extensive photoshopping.

Yes a coloboma = the only one in medical history to change shape and position.

I think she just had a slight fleck in her eye, no dark bar running through the iris. I've seen it on a few photographs which must have escaped the amateur artist who did the job.

by lj 25.10.13 17:09

Sparrow wrote:'Madeleine's right eye has a type of coloboma, a complete split in the iris. This consists of a black radial strip reaching from the pupil out to the edge of the white at the 7 o'clock position, about 30º clockwise from the bottom.' Actually, that was written by the author, and not stated by the McCanns. She may have surmised it as a 'type of coloboma', or picked it up from forum discussion herself. I don't think you will find instances of the parents naming it as a coloboma. Only Gerry saying he doesn't think it is one.

From auntie Phil, earlier in the same article:

And his idea for people everywhere to "look into Madeleine's eyes" is ingenious.

Madeleine's right eye, where the pupil runs into the blue-green iris, is distinctive and serves as an I.D. that is fail proof.

The idea of identifying Madeleine through her eye originated with a new picture that rekindled the hopes of her heartbroken family.

That is a coloboma, there are no other names for it. So you only believe itif it comes from the pathetic parents who cannot breath without lying??

I have no doubt we can find much more descriptions and probably naming of it. But I am a bit fed up doing work now a stampede of posters calling everything a myth has entered.

by **tigger** 25.10.13 17:33

lj wrote:
Sparrow wrote:'Madeleine's right eye has a type of coloboma, a complete split in the iris. This consists of a black radial strip reaching from the pupil out to the edge of the white at the 7 o'clock position, about 30º clockwise from the bottom.' Actually, that was written by the author, and not stated by the McCanns. She may have surmised it as a 'type of coloboma', or picked it up from forum discussion herself. I don't think you will find instances of the parents naming it as a coloboma. Only Gerry saying he doesn't think it is one.
From auntie Phil, earlier in the same article:

And his idea for people everywhere to "look into Madeleine's eyes" is ingenious.

Madeleine's right eye, where the pupil runs into the blue-green iris, is distinctive and serves as an I.D. that is fail proof.

The idea of identifying Madeleine through her eye originated with a new picture that rekindled the hopes of her heartbroken family.
That is a coloboma, there are no other names for it. So you only believe itif it comes from the pathetic parents who cannot breath without lying??

I have no doubt we can find much more descriptions and probably naming of it. But I am a bit fed up doing work now a stampede of posters calling everything a myth has entered.

Thank you! I think the best thing is to let them talk amongst themselves, but imo that gives new members and guests who genuinely want to find the truth a lot of misinformation.
Which is rather the point of such tactics. It's hard enough to keep track of the misinformation in the press without having to watch one's back.
Such tactics waste time and confuse newcomers. Which is probably the point of the exercise.

Why on earth come up with a non existent photo of Gerry heaving a fridge, then launch into a polemic on idiotic debates on photoshopping, then allow one or two that might be.

Yawn.....

by juliet 25.10.13 18:20

Very well put Tigger.

by lj 25.10.13 18:26

tigger wrote:
lj wrote:
Sparrow wrote:'Madeleine's right eye has a type of coloboma, a complete split in the iris. This consists of a black radial strip reaching from the pupil out to the edge of the white at the 7 o'clock position, about 30º clockwise from the bottom.' Actually, that was written by the author, and not stated by the McCanns. She may have surmised it as a 'type of coloboma', or picked it up from forum discussion herself. I don't think you will find instances of the parents naming it as a coloboma. Only Gerry saying he doesn't think it is one.
From auntie Phil, earlier in the same article:

And his idea for people everywhere to "look into Madeleine's eyes" is ingenious.

Madeleine's right eye, where the pupil runs into the blue-green iris, is distinctive and serves as an I.D. that is fail proof.

The idea of identifying Madeleine through her eye originated with a new picture that rekindled the hopes of her heartbroken family.
That is a coloboma, there are no other names for it. So you only believe itif it comes from the pathetic parents who cannot breath without lying??

I have no doubt we can find much more descriptions and probably naming of it. But I am a bit fed up doing work now a stampede of posters calling everything a myth has entered.
Thank you! I think the best thing is to let them talk amongst themselves, but imo that gives new members and guests who genuinely want to find the truth a lot of misinformation.
Which is rather the point of such tactics. It's hard enough to keep track of the misinformation in the press without having to watch one's back.
Such tactics waste time and confuse newcomers. Which is probably the point of the exercise.

Why on earth come up with a non existent photo of Gerry heaving a fridge, then launch into a polemic on idiotic debates on photoshopping, then allow one or two that might be.

Yawn.....

Yeah, I think I'm gonna take a siesta. Nothing better than a little nap after some sardines and wine!

by Sparrow 26.10.13 0:30

Well, tigger - maybe one day, in the not too distant, you will need to eat your words - because if Gerry's claim that 'nothing was as bad as the night we found her' is true, and if they did indeed find Madeleine, at night, it would probably not have been till the next evening at the earliest, that an 'abduction' was staged; in the meantime, anyone may speculate that there might have been a fridge, which eventually broke down, and in which a corpse had been stored. And what photographer would not take a picture of Gerry removing a fridge, if that indeed happened - if Gerry's 'missing' blog entry was indeed true, and also wasn't just a figment of peoples' imaginations? Is it really beyond all imagination that this appeared both in his blog, and also in one newspaper, with an accompanying photograph? The place was full of photographers and journalists desperate for all things McCann. If it happened, there will be photographs (like the one I believe I saw early on, and don't think I dreamt) - we know many McCann stories have been pulled, that might have been one them. It is quite possible that a blog (and news story, at solicitor or Clarrie request?) were deleted because they could possibly give a 'wrong' impression (ie. body - fridge) to the public, which indeed could be the case, in the event of there never having been a body in a fridge. But was there a fridge, and a body? The dogs indicated cadavar scent, so it seems more than likely there was a body. If the bodily fluids which were recovered from the boot of the car showed signs of having been frozen, it's reasonable to assume that there was at least a fridge, or a freezer, possibly both. If Gerry removed a fridge, as often speculated, there will be photographs of that happening, and if the investigation is thorough and true, those photographs will still exist, be acquired, and form part of it, unless every press photographer who was present at the fridge scene can be bought off - or unless there never was a broken fridge scene. There is no reason to remove a fridge when it is the landlord's problem; perhaps there was some reason why Gerry found it preferable to remove it himself, if he did, rather than to wait upon the landlord's convenience. So, I'd say 'let's wait and see' - because an awful lot of people seem to be under the impression that they read a deleted blog entry, even if they did not also read a broadsheet newspaper story or see a photograph, in which Gerry was removing a fridge from his holiday apartment. I believe I did read and see that in a newspaper online, that's all; but being the only one, I obviously tend towards wondering if I might have imagined it, and therefore would be interested to know, as there are many other new posters (and obviously the older ones don't recall a newspaper piece on it, only a blog entry) if any of them might have seen it, or the photograph, too.

Not here to argue, or intending to obfuscate, tigger - just adding my own thoughts.

by Okeydokey 26.10.13 0:56

The idea of this thread was to offer up scraps and not get into really heavy discussions. If something is disputed, I think it's best to park it and await other people's "scraps".

by Sparrow 26.10.13 3:29

Sorry, Okeydokey - it wasn't my intention to get involved in any scraps as a result of my original post on this thread, which was just the scraps I find most interesting!

by **tigger** 26.10.13 6:33

Sparrow: you seem to suffer from the common delusion of (often short term)members that you are debating or answering questions.
You have simply answered my post about photoshopping and the coloboma with a pointless story about the likelihood of a photo of a fridge.

It's known as spamming I believe.

by Liz Eagles 26.10.13 8:20

tigger wrote:Sparrow: you seem to suffer from the common delusion of (often short term)members that you are debating or answering questions.
You have simply answered my post about photoshopping and the coloboma with a pointless story about the likelihood of a photo of a fridge.

It's known as spamming I believe.

Here's a little ditty to get the day going....

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

by MrsC 26.10.13 9:03

Am I right in remembering that GM testified for MO in a case of medical negligence/malpractice or something similar during a routine op? It was before the holiday in Portugal.

Did MO 'owe' GM 'one' (I think I can remember it being worded that way)?

Apologies if I am totally wrong, it's just ringing a bell somewhere in my brain.

by Pennypennypenny 26.10.13 9:06

Isn't it weird reading statements or small parts of statements from the tapas group.? Reading back up the thread a small paragraph from Diane Webster. None of them give straight answers to anything. It's all very vague and lots of "errs and you knows". So bloody frustrating.

by GEROME THE GNOME 26.10.13 9:26

Does anyone know where on 25th of april street Serge Malinka(The man whose car was torched and the word "talk" written on the pavement) lived? as that was the location of the Smith sighting.

by juliet 26.10.13 11:23

I definitely remember that Oldfield was up for malpractice. I thought the case had yet to be resolved at the time of the holiday...will look for it. It certainly could have been a factor.
Another early memory: perhaps just gossip but there was much talk of Kate having rowed with G one night and puffed off to Murat's house.

by juliet 26.10.13 11:25

That was meant to be huffed off!

by Guest 26.10.13 11:27

I now have an imagine of Kate as the Big Bad Wolf threatening to huff, puff and blow Murat's house down!

by MrsC 26.10.13 11:48

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I now have an imagine of Kate as the Big Bad Wolf threatening to huff, puff and blow Murat's house down!

Well she wasn't called Hot Lips for nothing! winkwink

by Research_Reader 26.10.13 15:27

For me, the late night call between Murat and Malinka remains strange and potentially significant, especially since Murat at first denied it. I haven't seen this mentioned for some times now.

by lj 26.10.13 15:51

MrsC wrote:Am I right in remembering that GM testified for MO in a case of medical negligence/malpractice or something similar during a routine op? It was before the holiday in Portugal.

Did MO 'owe' GM 'one' (I think I can remember it being worded that way)?

Apologies if I am totally wrong, it's just ringing a bell somewhere in my brain.

I remember that, and wondered about it too.

by chillyheat 26.10.13 16:16

The disgusting words from Kate McCann.
"If your child is killed in a traffic accident, or died of cancer, parents are at peace."

I care little for the McCanns, their culpability or lack of it. I care not one iota about their alleged neglect, their parenting skills, what they might have done or what they didn’t do; what their sexual peccadilloes are, how much they drunk, whether they’re narcissistic or arrogant or both.

What I DO care about are the obvious and seemingly limitless network of high profile supporters:- politicians, businessman, media moguls, tycoons, magnates, celebrities, TV pundits, newspaper columnists and chat show presenters who all queue up to peddle Team McCanns official stance;-
That Madeleine McCann was abducted by a paedophile and that the Portuguese were complicit in allowing him to escape by accusing her parents instead.

A stance for which there not only exists not ONE, single, reasonable, feasible, logical or rational scrap of evidence; but for which, rather, there exists a whole plethora of circumstantial evidence to suggest an alternative scenario; one which all of the above are either ignorant of, or choose to ignore.

And if they are electing to ignore that evidence, then one has to ask why?

Or, perhaps, that’s just the problem. The evidence that exists IS, purely circumstantial. Or at least, the evidence that we know about.

For who knows what lies in those boxes of evidence, gathering dust somewhere in a Lisbon Court storeroom?

Documents, files, dossiers and materials that never got released along with the thousands of pages that did.

Materials still retained by the Portuguese for if, and when, they elect to re-open the case.

Materials that never even got released into the hands of the McCanns, despite their most ardent and sustained efforts to secure them.

I wonder if Kate sometimes think about what is in those boxes. late at night, when she is having one of those sleepless, restless nights that she writes about.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Okeydokey 26.10.13 16:32

Pennypennypenny wrote:Isn't it weird reading statements or small parts of statements from the tapas group.? Reading back up the thread a small paragraph from Diane Webster. None of them give straight answers to anything. It's all very vague and lots of "errs and you knows". So bloody frustrating.

It's very frustrating that they never seemed to have been interviewed by Police - either in Portugal or the UK - in a challenging way. As you imply, the idea these are intelligent professionals simply talking about what they did on holiday and in response to the tragic disappearance of a child beggars belief.

by Woofer 26.10.13 18:16

GEROME THE GNOME wrote:Does anyone know where on 25th of april street Serge Malinka(The man whose car was torched and the word "talk" written on the pavement) lived? as that was the location of the Smith sighting.

There is a picture here [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] of Malinka`s burnt out car which is said to be 30 metres away from his apartment.

If you go on Google maps and into Rue 25th April, you will see, by the buildings, that this is at the church end of that road and quite near to where the Smith sighting was.

There is more here about him having a boat.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]