McCanns new video: Maddie plays dressing-up, weeks before she vanished

by **Jill Havern** 01.05.10 22:31

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

Gerry and Kate McCann are hoping to put the focus back on the search for their daughter Madeleine with a new video released to mark the third anniversary of her disappearance.

The short film shows the couple pursuing attempts to find their missing child over the past three years, from handing out posters in Portugal to chasing up leads from their home in Rothley, Leicestershire.

It includes a new photograph of a grown up-looking Madeleine wearing blue eyeshadow accompanied with a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace.

The video, produced by family friend Jon Corner, was originally shown at a fundraising event in London in January to mark the 1,000th day since the little girl’s disappearance.

With the Dido song “Here With Me” as a soundtrack, it begins with a computer graphic of the holiday complex in Praia da Luz in the Algarve where Madeleine vanished on May 3 2007.

It goes on to show Mr and Mrs McCann in and around Praia da Luz in the early days after their daughter went missing as they kick-started a campaign to find her.

There are also scenes of the couple answering telephone calls and sifting through emails back in Britain.

The film closes with the message: “Thank you for not giving up on Madeleine. Together we can bring her home.”

McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “The video is designed to remind people that the search for Madeleine is ongoing.

“Just because she’s not in the headlines every day doesn’t mean nothing is being done. Kate and Gerry are still devoting a large part of their daily lives to the search.”

:: Information about Madeleine’s disappearance can be passed to the McCanns through their website, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] or by calling their investigation line on 0845 838 4699.

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

by littlepixie 01.05.10 22:40

Is that photo really Maddie?
How many times have posters been attacked for saying Maddie looks like she is wearing make-up in photos.

BTW. My little (now big) girl used to walk around like a clown after she had found my make-up stash but she was about 7 or 8 at the time.

I posted a long time ago about my daughter walking into our shop aged about 7 with bright red clown lipstick lips and an old lady whom I was serving curled her lip (not knowing she was my daughter) and stated how disgusted she was. My daughter had found my make-up and helped herself.

I was annoyed at the lady but in a way also embarrassed at what she may have been suggesting.

That is why I think that the photo above is a very strange one to release.

by Guest 01.05.10 22:42

by **Jill Havern** 01.05.10 22:45

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

by **Jill Havern** 01.05.10 22:48

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

by littlepixie 01.05.10 22:49

I feel the same candyfloss.

by **Jill Havern** 01.05.10 22:50

Jon Corner:

“So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd,” family friend Jon Corner says of the child. “So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some bastard picked up on that.”
Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

-----

DC 1485 Messiah: "Okay. I’d like you to describe Madeleine to me. What sort of a child she is and you know how you see her.”

Dr David Payne reply: "Mm, err Madeleine’s err a very striking err beautiful child, I’d almost if I want a better phrase call her doll-like, you know she was very, you know I think, you know very unique looking child err, she’d got very pretty, you know blonde hair err in a bob, she was quite a petite err child and you know she was very bubbly, very err you know she was a very good child to, to interact with. She was very bright, you could have a lot of fun with Madeleine err and you know she, she was, you know Kate and Gerry’s, you know pride and joy. They’d had a lot of trouble conceiving, you know with IVF and everything and you know Madeleine was their miracle. She was obviously very unique with the fact that she’d got the, you know the iris defect err but you know she was certainly a happy go lucky child you know she was, she would interact with the other children very well, as I said on the other, earlier recording, you know she played very happily with Lily and you know indeed the other children. She was, you know, very, she is a very beautiful child and good fun.”

DC 1485 Messiah: "Mm.”

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

by aiyoyo 01.05.10 23:25

That makes my skin crawls. Its just so Jon Bennett Ramsey!

Which 3-year old knows how to apply perfect make-up like that?

How did Jon Corner happen to be around on that day she was messing around with make up that he was ever ready to make the home video?

Something doesnt add up. That make up is not done by herself. an adult had done it for her. No child gets anything straight on their face at that age. I find it creepy that some adults had deemed it necessary to apply make up for her just for the home video...why cant she be filmed in her natural look?

Most importantly, why the need to release such a video? Does it enhance the search? I shouldnt think so. In fact it makes it worst. Who in their right mind searching for their child would release that kind of pic? It's sending the wrong message because people looking out for a child will naturally expect to be looking for a nutural looking 6 year old and not a mini adult.

The mccanns are really mad. Their lies know no limit.

by **Jill Havern** 01.05.10 23:31

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

This is how little girls usually do their own make up

by aiyoyo 01.05.10 23:44

Hi jkh,

Now, that would be considered a good one if done by 7 or 8 year old, but for 3 year old, no way they can do even that.

At least most three year olds I know doddle lipstick on their cheeks in addition to lips because they cannot aim properly, also they dont understand the signficant/purpose of each make up. The 3 year olds I know usually mess with powder, perfume, or lipstick rarely shadows because they dont know how to aim at the eye lids.

by kary 02.05.10 10:33

Some interesting screenshots:

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

by aiyoyo 02.05.10 12:04

Is this a joke? I cant open it?

by **Jill Havern** 02.05.10 12:16

They're screenshots aiyoyo [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] that'd be why.

Haven't see that video of Tony before though.

by **Jill Havern** 02.05.10 12:21

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

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

by kary 02.05.10 12:42

Sorry - I watched the version on youtube

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

and was just intrigued that the linking at the end of the video included Tony's videos and reference to the dogs and the smell of death.

by littlepixie 02.05.10 12:52

mmmh. . very strange that video. Someone said the video seems a bit threatening towards someone or carrying a sublime message, well I agree. Whats all that about "information - information"

I wonder who these videos are aimed at?

by kangdang 02.05.10 13:18

Why would they want to use provocative images of Madeleine in their new appeal video? Are they crazy, insensitive or what?

Why does Corner (sp!) keep zooming in the McCanns backsides too?

Jeez, am i seeing things, reading things that are not there or what?

by Guest 02.05.10 13:43

What a strange and weird video. At least they (the pro's) can't accuse the anti's of "doctoring" these photos can they??

by justagrannynow 1 02.05.10 16:19

kangdang wrote: Why does Corner (sp!) keep zooming in the McCanns backsides too?
Jeez, am i seeing things, reading things that are not there or what?

I was hoping someone would comment on that as I found the shots lingering on Kates swaying backside bewildering to say the least !!! Why concentrate on the torso from the shoulders down to the knees ????

I think I am obviously missing the message too as I cannot see what it has got to do with Madeleine.

by Quincy 02.05.10 16:41

It is a very disturbing video.

Sick to say the least.

To me it's coming across as a message to someone to STFU.

by kangdang 02.05.10 16:45

Wouldn't the most effective video appeal be, after all this time, one where the McCanns directed a message to Madeleine and her abductor/s. Surely a heartfelt direct appeal/plea would work far better.

Seriously cannot get my head around this new video, it does nothing except promote images of Madeleine that would appeal to plenty of paedophiles ...beggars belief, it really does

by aiyoyo 02.05.10 16:57

uuhmm,,,,Must go back to take a look....why people see the backside I dont.

by aiyoyo 02.05.10 17:20

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

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

Thanks jkh.
I've listened to them now. At the end, TB had said "those items had to be in direct contact where the corpse had been/laid".......I didnt realise that ie that it absolutely had to be in 'direct contact' first hand.

I had thought that, but in addition, so long as an item had been put together with something that had been in direct contact with the corpse (first hand) then cross transference/contamination (2nd hand) can occur. Of course, someone better comes along and correct me b/c I am not the best informed or read.

by kary 02.05.10 18:44

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

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

Thanks jkh.
I've listened to them now. At the end, TB had said "those items had to be in direct contact where the corpse had been/laid".......I didnt realise that ie that it absolutely had to be in 'direct contact' first hand.

I had thought that, but in addition, so long as an item had been put together with something that had been in direct contact with the corpse (first hand) then cross transference/contamination (2nd hand) can occur. Of course, someone better comes along and correct me b/c I am not the best informed or read.

There is an often quoted paper regarding cadaver dogs and their reliability which describes an interesting experiment with carpet squares that were not in direct contact with the tissue of the deceased:

L. Oesterhelweg, S. Krober, K. Rottmann, J. Willhoft, C. Braun, N. Thies, K. Puschel, J. Sildenath, and A. Gehl, “Cadaver Dogs—A Study on Detection of Contaminated Carpet Squares,” 174 Forensic Science International 35-39 (2008).

You can download the pdf from here

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

Here's an extract from the method:

Two deceased individuals, a 60-year-old male (A) and a 63-year-old male (B) were admitted to the Institute of Legal Medicine at the University Medical Center Hamburg. They were immediately transported to a tent placed within the inner courtyard of the institute. The location for this investigation was specifically chosen in order to minimize a potential cross contamination of any odors
with those of stored, putrefied bodies within the Institute. Both men (A and B) had publicly collapsed and died despite comprehensive resuscitative efforts. At the start of our investigation, the postmortem interval for both men (A and B) was measured at 110 and 120 min, respectively.

Brand new carpet squares 20 cm _ 20 cm were purchased and used as the medium for the odor transport. Before the initiation of this investigation, the carpet squares were stored in airtight containers outside the boundaries of the Institute of Legal Medicine.

The two bodies were placed in a supine position on top of a new and clean table and a separate table was used for each individual. A cotton blanket was wrapped around each body to preclude the direct contamination of the carpet squares with the bodies while at the same time simulating a thin layer of clothing covering each individual. A total of 32 carpet squares were placed subsequently underneath the backside of the torsos. Within 45 min of the arrival at the institute, 24 carpet squares (body A) were ‘‘contaminated’’ for 10 min during three consecutive sessions. Within 15 min of arriving at the institute, eight other carpet squares (body B) were contaminated for 2 min during two subsequent sessions. Additionally, living individuals who denied having had any contact with deceased tissues served as control subjects and contaminated an additional eight carpet squares. Immediately following the contamination, the carpet squares were placed into airtight glass jars and brought to the Police Dog Training Center (LPS 36) at the Hamburg State Police Department.

-------------------

The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75–100%), specificity (91–100%), and having a positive predictive value (90–100%), negative predictive value (90–100%) as well as accuracy (92–100%).

Another interesting thing is that contamination could be for as little as 2 mins. Also, one of the bodies had been dead for only 1 hour 50 mins. This doesn't deal with transference, though.

by **Jill Havern** 02.05.10 18:45

candyfloss wrote:What a strange and weird video. At least they (the pro's) can't accuse the anti's of "doctoring" these photos can they??

It's interesting to see the Pro's opinions of the appropriateness of the new photo of Maddie.

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

Deuce:

It's a picture of a child who has raided the make up box and made a mess of herself with eye shadow. It's an impish child having a laugh.

This picture also forms a small part of the video. The bigger picture being to raise Madeleine's profile and show a normal child using photographs to reflect that child.

It is sad that the motive of the video has been lost in judging a photograph where the child has decorated herself. If it was a photo of a child, deliberatly made up to look like a made up woman, like Kate Price recently did, then it would be a different kettle of fish as the motive was different.

With this picture, the motive was not propogated by the parents making Madeleine up to show off. Therefore any motive to consider this picture sinister would have to be considered by those who behold it.

by Guest 02.05.10 19:02

jkh wrote:
candyfloss wrote:What a strange and weird video. At least they (the pro's) can't accuse the anti's of "doctoring" these photos can they??

It's interesting to see the Pro's opinions of the appropriateness of the new photo of Maddie.

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

Deuce:

It's a picture of a child who has raided the make up box and made a mess of herself with eye shadow. It's an impish child having a laugh.

This picture also forms a small part of the video. The bigger picture being to raise Madeleine's profile and show a normal child using photographs to reflect that child.

It is sad that the motive of the video has been lost in judging a photograph where the child has decorated herself. If it was a photo of a child, deliberatly made up to look like a made up woman, like Kate Price recently did, then it would be a different kettle of fish as the motive was different.

With this picture, the motive was not propogated by the parents making Madeleine up to show off. Therefore any motive to consider this picture sinister would have to be considered by those who behold it.

Does he really believe that Madeleine put that make-up on herself???

by **Jill Havern** 02.05.10 19:22

Yep, he also thinks she's an impish child having a laugh. I don't see Maddie laughing in the pic.

In fact there's a little bit of blue to the right of the pic and I wonder if it's the tshirt of a person because it looks as though someone has grabbed her hair and pulled her head back for the photo.

by littlepixie 02.05.10 19:44

I left a comment on the Mail article saying the new picture of Maddie reminded me of the pics I have seen of JonBenet Ramsey. It hasn't been published.

by twinkle 02.05.10 21:13

I have to say that the makeup doesn't look perfectly applied at all, it is all over her cheeks if you look.
But I do think it is an odd choice of picture to release, given that any picture they have would not be an accurate representation of how she would look now.