The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™️ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Photographs revisited - questions

Page 5 of 17 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 21:12

Yes, it is very sad Aquila. There is a newspaper article somewhere that describes Gerry going to home to scour thousands of photos and hundreds of hours of videos, yet what we see is apparently the "best" of this tawdry collection.

I find it interesting that the snow white video is shorn of its soundtrack, and can't help but wonder what it would reveal.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 21:23

@Canada12.

I found this comment on which had been left on one of the You Tube comments in regards to the make up pics of MBM. Apologies for the crudeness of it and mods delete if you see fit, but it was the last remark that stood out. Before PDL.. Obviously could be rubbish but at the same time i often think that there are people who for whatever reason have been gagged but like to put little things out in the domain.. 



Andrew77R: I appreciate that this isn't your comment but I'm not happy with it being quoted so have deleted it. Perhaps you could post a link to the video clip so that people can read it if they want to. NFWTD.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by worriedmum on 12.05.14 21:31

Andrew77R wrote:
sar wrote:look at the level of the ears, what position would you need to be in to get them there?
You would clearly have to tilt your head back as far as it would humanly be possible to do so.

The question is why though. Why was she made to do that.
And where on earth was the photographer positioned?
avatar
worriedmum

Posts : 1816
Reputation : 418
Join date : 2012-01-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by FH on 12.05.14 21:33

worriedmum wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
sar wrote:look at the level of the ears, what position would you need to be in to get them there?
You would clearly have to tilt your head back as far as it would humanly be possible to do so.

The question is why though. Why was she made to do that.
And where on earth was the photographer positioned?
if you look at the pictures thought to be of an apartment in Bergau(?) on one of the other threads. There is a balcony with a  garden below.

FH

Posts : 119
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 21:39

Andrew77R wrote:@Canada12.

I found this comment on which had been left on one of the You Tube comments in regards to the make up pics of MBM. Apologies for the crudeness of it and mods delete if you see fit, but it was the last remark that stood out. Before PDL.. Obviously could be rubbish but at the same time i often think that there are people who for whatever reason have been gagged but like to put little things out in the domain.. 



Andrew77R: I appreciate that this isn't your comment but I'm not happy with it being quoted so have deleted it. Perhaps you could post a link to the video clip so that people can read it if they want to. NFWTD.

I saw that too and decided against posting it here, although I'm not saying that I disagree with you for doing so Andrew, nor indeed NFWTD's decision to delete.

It reflects thoughts that I have previously had myself.

I appreciate that this probably doesn't reflect too well on me, but I feel the pose reflects a motif that occurs in a certain kind of adult pornography. Consequently I feel there can be no "innocent" explanation for that photo.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 21:42

@NFWTD.

Yes, sorry about that. I felt uneasy copying and pasting it really.

Link is here anyway. Scroll down for comments.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t039emhS85s&app=desktop
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by margaret on 12.05.14 21:44

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
FH wrote:
In my opinion the parents  are guilty , but of what I'm not sure. Maybe neglect and covering up an accident, maybe sedation, maybe  much, much worse.  I just can't make as big a leap of imagination as some people can, over what seem fairly normal pictures of a little girl, doing what little girls do.

Totally agree with you FH, this a rare opinion on this forum.  Being a father of two children who were little only a short while ago, I have lots of photographs that if posted here would be 'absolute proof' that they had been abused, or that they were terminally ill, or that they didn't exist at all.

Agree with both of you. It's okay to say you 'think' something but there have been claims in this thread that Maddie is definitely wearing a wig and definitely wearing eyeliner. Shocking IMO, it's not doing us any favours. Apart from the odd gap in the arm of the ice cream photo, l see nothing untoward.
avatar
margaret

Posts : 585
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-09-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 21:50

margaret wrote:
Agree with both of you. It's okay to say you 'think' something but there have been claims in this thread that Maddie is definitely wearing a wig and definitely wearing eyeliner. Shocking IMO, it's not doing us any favours.  Apart from the odd gap in the arm of the ice cream photo, l see nothing untoward.
Nothing untoward in this photo...... Really??



I don't have a daughter but how many people on here who do would put make up on there 3 year old girl and make her pose like that and take photo's of it.

Would like to think the answer is NONE.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 21:56

I think that if this case was straightforward and there was no doubt that the McCanns were telling the truth (yes, I know it's a gigantic IF) the photos would be accepted as being okay.

However, everything about the case smells worse than mouldy sea bass and so the circumstances in which some of the photos were taken can only be regarded with suspicion as far as I'm concerned.

avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by aquila on 12.05.14 21:59

Andrew77R wrote:
margaret wrote:
Agree with both of you. It's okay to say you 'think' something but there have been claims in this thread that Maddie is definitely wearing a wig and definitely wearing eyeliner. Shocking IMO, it's not doing us any favours.  Apart from the odd gap in the arm of the ice cream photo, l see nothing untoward.
Nothing untoward in this photo...... Really??



I don't have a daughter but how many people on here who do would put make up on there 3 year old girl and make her pose like that and take photo's of it.

Would like to think the answer is NONE.
The point is how many parents (of which there are thankfully few) whose child goes missing would choose to release such a photograph in their 'global campaign'?
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8515
Reputation : 1603
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 12.05.14 22:05

aquila wrote:
The point is how many parents (of which there are thankfully few) whose child goes missing would choose to release such a photograph in their 'global campaign'?

While I find all the talk of wigs and children wearing make-up a little bizarre, I've always said that I find that choice of photo really strange, so on that aspect of this discussion I totally agree.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by margaret on 12.05.14 22:08

Andrew77R wrote:
margaret wrote:
Agree with both of you. It's okay to say you 'think' something but there have been claims in this thread that Maddie is definitely wearing a wig and definitely wearing eyeliner. Shocking IMO, it's not doing us any favours.  Apart from the odd gap in the arm of the ice cream photo, l see nothing untoward.
Nothing untoward in this photo...... Really??



I don't have a daughter but how many people on here who do would put make up on there 3 year old girl and make her pose like that and take photo's of it.

Would like to think the answer is NONE.

How do you know she was made to pose like that? It's just a little girl dressing up and someone put a bit of make up on her and taken from a bad angle.

I have a young boy and although not a daughter l am around young girls enough to know they love dressing up and putting make up on (though l agree that it looks like it was put on Maddie she couldn't have done that herself).

I think the Gaspar statements and DP are dodgy but l think some of you are chasing shadows with this, they appear to be normal photos but of course l could be wrong.
avatar
margaret

Posts : 585
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-09-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Hicks on 12.05.14 22:13

canada12 wrote:I agree with you Aquila.

But let me add this... I too believe that the McCanns wanted to promote awareness of Madeleine. But in what context? On the surface and for the general public, they were publicising a missing child.

I'll be careful how I phrase this next bit, as I don't want to say anything libellous. Underneath the surface, is it possible they were publicising a missing child who may have been known in paedophile circles, perhaps not by name but by photograph? And their choice of photos may have been photos that they knew were already in circulation in those circles? And by publicising these particular photos, might they have been issuing a warning to those individuals - get these pictures of Madeleine OFF your computers?

Sorry if this offends anyone, but it was the first thing that came to mind when I saw the questionable pictures.

Again, this is pure speculation on my part, and doesn't point to the guilt or innocence of anyone in this case.
My thoughts also.
PDL seems a shady kind of place. There was the villa with the studio/ photography equipment and toys, thought by some locals to be connected with paedophiles.
 A garage actually in the OC( seen during searches, can't remember who) that had a small bed and children toys which seemed very odd to the person searching.

RM rumoured( PJ files) to have visited child pornography websites on his computer. 
Malinka rumoured to have been convicted of child sex offences.
  
The McCann's spoke of paedophiles straight away. GM was talking about paedophiles on a phone call not long after the alarm was raised, as heard by a witness.

I had thought back along that maybe those photos of Madeleine were sold in those kind of circles. The money to fund further IVF or whatever. It is such a bad thought that you don't want ever to think it or for it to be true.
I often wonder if Kate saying ,"they've taken her" was referring to people who paid for the photos. Just my opinion.

____________________
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln.
avatar
Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 59

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by FH on 12.05.14 22:48

I know the McC's mentioned abduction by paedophile very early on and I initially thought they were setting expectations in case she was found with signs of abuse, but having thought about it for a while  I don't think that's necessarily the case. They would know that old abuse would show up as old abuse and new abuse would show up as new abuse.

So taking things back to zero (whatever that means) 

On Jackanory today children we have the  story of the abduction of a beautiful little  girl. We ask  who would do such a wicked thing? To steal a little girl away from her family. 


1) was it the most likely person, an estranged parent- not in this story.
2) Kidnappers - not wealthy enough
3) Stolen to order for someone  - surely there are easier ways, adoption from Romania, surrogacy....Plus wouldn't you want the younger one? Or all three.
4) Gypsies  - probably got enough mouths to feed. Maybe sold on? Again take all three. 3x the profit.
5) Aliens/Dingos/Sasquatch - probably too far fetched/ been done/ wrong continent - although seemingly Sasquatch DNA evidence exists.
6) bear/lynx/wolves - extinct /  critically endangered / rare and only in north 
7) domestic dog - very possible,  but probably not . They alert beautifully, but are not tidy and would probably leave some / quite a lot of evidence 
8) clutching at straws here, what about David Copperfield, after all  he made the Statue of Liberty disappear, or Paul Daniels - he's magic. I don't think either are known for abducting children though and it might be libellous/slanderous to say so on camera?

So who do we blame? Who else is plausible? Who else would fit the bill of abductor? Who other than today's child snatching monster in the shadows/bogey man/ daemon in the flesh, the universally reviled paedophile (and quite rightly so) . So let's blame him. Enter stage left.

If it absolutely has to be abduction (which it has for 7 long years, despite there being absolutely no evidence to support it), then I can't really see who else could be introduced into this narrative that would be any better fit into the story. I think that is how the ubiquitous paedophile arrived in this story. She "couldn't have wandered off". She must have been taken. When you rule out all the other options. he's the only credible one left AND has the added advantage of being  every parents worst nightmare. The additional  benefit being it  would horrify/titillate/provoke sympathy/engage the media and the public, help raise MONEY to get her back etc 

Look how much time we spend on this forum discussing it as an option,  although perhaps not in quite the way they intended.  There is not nearly so much time spent on the Victoria Beckham look alike, the soothing  couple, or the men/woman and child with a coloboma in the taxi, or the thousand other equally ridiculous, non-existent  abductors (IMO obviously)

Personally if I were writing the story I would have gone with a) wandered off - most likely, or b)  aliens - far more interesting, but this is not a biography, or a sci-fi story, this is a who dunnit.  So the paedo wins hands down. 

If only Miss Marple, Poirot, or Shelock Homes were here to solve it. I'm sure they could point SY in the right direction as to who removed her from the apartment.  

For those of you who think I am naive, I am well aware of the Gaspar's statements, the empty CATS records etc, but I don't think we have anything like the full facts. Something tells me the paedophile angle suits  certain people very well.  It muddies the waters beautifully and could easily make the McC's look like victims of vicious trolls. Affecting their ability to get a fair trial .....

I really don't think they care about being called paedophiles. Look at what gets Gerry totally irate. Suggest they sedated their children, or were involved in Madeleine's death and he get's very , very cross.  Ask about the dog blood and cadaver alerts in their apartment, on their hire car, on Kate's clothes and he's absolutely livid. Ask about sightings and he smirks.  If that was me, I  would be taking anyone who suggested I was a paedo to court, suing their ass off and giving the proceeds to charity, but that's not where their focus is. They take people to court for suggesting she's dead and that they might be involved. 

Go figure.

FH

Posts : 119
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-04-26

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 12.05.14 22:50

Wonderful post FH :)

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 12.05.14 22:54

me too, I agree. Great post.
Enough said.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by russiandoll on 12.05.14 22:59

Could not have put it better.... great post.

 imo  paedophilia = ONE  BIG FAT RED HERRING.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tigger on 13.05.14 6:16

dantezebu wrote:Tigger, do you think then that the hair found in the car (alluded to by GA) was Maddie's or from a wig?

Yes, That must be Maddie's own hair. New techniques will be able to extract sufficient DNA from a rootless hair now and some have been saved I understand.

Just as a theory, say that had leukaemia and it started about a year and a half before she disappeared.
Her hairloss would be due to that.  
It's obvious that would explain a wig.
An illness that needed to be kept  from the public would also explain the witheld  health records and quite a few other things.



The playground photos enlarge very well and are of high definition.  The set you should look at is the second one,  Click on them and  you should get a good enlargement.  Top two of tha set and the one where she is standing.

@RD. totally agree re red herring  and did say so in earlier post. Amazing that paedophilia doesn't seem to upset people half as much as daring to suggest that the poor little girl was ill and therefore wearing a wig at times.


https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4537-most-pictures-taken-on-same-day?highlight=Most+pictures+taken+on+the+same

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by AndyB on 13.05.14 8:30

tigger wrote:An illness that needed to be kept  from the public would also explain the witheld  health records and quite a few other things.
Agreed, its also a potential explanation for the high level involvement but leukaemia (or any other form of cancer for that matter) wouldn't need to be kept from the public. Do you have something else in mind?

AndyB

Posts : 692
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-06-03
Age : 54
Location : Consett, County Durham

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by worriedmum on 13.05.14 8:50

margaret wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
margaret wrote:
Agree with both of you. It's okay to say you 'think' something but there have been claims in this thread that Maddie is definitely wearing a wig and definitely wearing eyeliner. Shocking IMO, it's not doing us any favours.  Apart from the odd gap in the arm of the ice cream photo, l see nothing untoward.
Nothing untoward in this photo...... Really??



I don't have a daughter but how many people on here who do would put make up on there 3 year old girl and make her pose like that and take photo's of it.

Would like to think the answer is NONE.

How do you know she was made to pose like that? It's just a little girl dressing up and someone put a bit of make up on her and taken from a bad angle.

I have a young boy and although not a daughter l am around young girls enough to know they love dressing up and putting make up on (though l agree that it looks like it was put on Maddie she couldn't have done that herself).

I think the Gaspar statements and DP are dodgy but l think some of you are chasing shadows with this, they appear to be normal photos but of course l could be wrong.
Sorry Margaret, although I agree with you about the make-up looking too carefully applied to have been done herself, there is lots about this photo that just doesn't feel right to me. I really find her expression worrying. IIRC this was supposed to be taken at home? But the wall texture doesn't look like the walls of the house on the 'Madeleine was Here' video. To me it looks more like a holiday house and the angle it was taken from makes me wonder if she was on a balcony and the photographer was looking up at her. The fringe is very long on one side, like the tennis photo so possibly taken at a similar time. The metal thing on the wall reminds me of the clothes airer folded up on the wall behind David Payne on the pictures taken on the balcony in PDL, but I don't think  it is the same place.

I seem to remember that there was discussion on this photo as to whether the 'eye shadow' was  added to the photo afterwards. Please could we look at this again?
avatar
worriedmum

Posts : 1816
Reputation : 418
Join date : 2012-01-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by tigger on 13.05.14 9:23

AndyB wrote:
tigger wrote:An illness that needed to be kept  from the public would also explain the witheld  health records and quite a few other things.
Agreed, its also a potential explanation for the high level involvement but leukaemia (or any other form of cancer for that matter) wouldn't need to be kept from the public. Do you have something else in mind?

No. If the public needed to look for a healthy, beautiful little princess any illness would need to be kept hidden.
I suggested leukaemia because it is  very hard to treat in young children, but periods of recovery are common - could be anything. iVF children are more susceptible.
I do have some sympathy understanding  forKate as my feeling is that she had expected a healthy baby, very much like the Paynes'.  It would explain a lot.

The public would also not have looked favourably on doctors leaving a sick cild alone.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 47
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by margaret on 13.05.14 9:32

tigger wrote:
I suggested leukaemia because it is  very hard to treat in young children, but periods of recovery are common - could be anything. iVF children are more susceptible.

That's ICSI babies, and they are slightly more susceptible to disabilities not disease.
avatar
margaret

Posts : 585
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-09-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Guest on 13.05.14 9:33

tigger wrote:
AndyB wrote:
tigger wrote:An illness that needed to be kept  from the public would also explain the witheld  health records and quite a few other things.
Agreed, its also a potential explanation for the high level involvement but leukaemia (or any other form of cancer for that matter) wouldn't need to be kept from the public. Do you have something else in mind?

No. If the public needed to look for a healthy, beautiful little princess any  illness would need to be kept hidden.
I suggested leukaemia because it is  very hard to treat in young children, but periods of recovery are common - could be anything. iVF children are more susceptible.
I do have some sympathy understanding  forKate as my feeling is that she had expected a healthy baby, very much like the Paynes'.  It would explain a lot.

The public would also not have looked favourably on doctors leaving a sick cild alone.

Brought over from a post about M's fourth birthday on another thread.

Mr McCann, along with wife Kate, said: "Today we should be celebrating the fourth birthday of our daughter Madeleine.

"Instead we have had to remember what a normal, beautiful, vivacious, funny, courageous and loving little girl that we are missing today.

Courageous?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by Rasputin on 13.05.14 9:35

"The public would also not have
looked favourably on doctors leaving
a sick cild alone"

Shouldn't that read " sick doctors leaving a child alone " Tigger ?

____________________
"I'm not buying it" Wendy Murphy
avatar
Rasputin

Posts : 269
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-13

Back to top Go down

Re: Photographs revisited - questions

Post by MrsC on 13.05.14 9:35

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
tigger wrote:
AndyB wrote:
tigger wrote:An illness that needed to be kept  from the public would also explain the witheld  health records and quite a few other things.
Agreed, its also a potential explanation for the high level involvement but leukaemia (or any other form of cancer for that matter) wouldn't need to be kept from the public. Do you have something else in mind?

No. If the public needed to look for a healthy, beautiful little princess any  illness would need to be kept hidden.
I suggested leukaemia because it is  very hard to treat in young children, but periods of recovery are common - could be anything. iVF children are more susceptible.
I do have some sympathy understanding  forKate as my feeling is that she had expected a healthy baby, very much like the Paynes'.  It would explain a lot.

The public would also not have looked favourably on doctors leaving a sick cild alone.

Brought over from a post about M's fourth birthday on another thread.

Mr McCann, along with wife Kate, said: "Today we should be celebrating the fourth birthday of our daughter Madeleine.

"Instead we have had to remember what a normal, beautiful, vivacious, funny, courageous and loving little girl that we are missing today.

Courageous?

Normal??
avatar
MrsC

Posts : 293
Reputation : 88
Join date : 2011-05-12

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 17 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum