Madeleine in red dress photos

Just wanted to post these pics together to see if they're all the same and work out why the backgrounds change?

Ok, sorry - they're all the same... but taken, I imagine at the same time as the one here on the right (Madeleine feeding something to one of the twins (cropped out) I seem to remember. How odd that they used such an old photo.

Mods, please delete this pointless and embarassing topic of mine *cringe*

Wintabells wrote:Mods, please delete this pointless and embarassing topic of mine *cringe*

Please don't! that one photo above on the right is the one I'm puzzling out. There aren't too many of her taken side on.
What do you think, I feel that her head is rather large at the back, the effect you can get with hair extensions is a bit like that, but if you draw an imaginary line from the forehead to the back of the neck, it wouldn't normally stick out quite that much. What do you think?

Hi Tigger.

I sort of think I know what you mean... but I think she's just got that sort of head shape where it goes quite high at the top/back?

D'you agree that the 'Campaign' photo (sitting against Gerry, I guess, in the crushed velvet red dress) is probably part of the same set as the top right one? I know I've seen the full version of the top right one, where Madeleine's outstretched hand has a biscuit in it which she's offering to one of her sibs. Seems to me those pics (red velvet dress) were quite 'old' relatively speaking and one would have thought they'd have used something more recent to spread awareness of their 'abducted' child. I can't help but feel they chose the photo they did because it's especially sweet, and dare I say, somewhat flattering....not least because of the absence of the eye-bags which are so frequently present in other photos.

Ok, here it is.

Wintabells wrote:Hi Tigger.

I sort of think I know what you mean... but I think she's just got that sort of head shape where it goes quite high at the top/back?

D'you agree that the 'Campaign' photo (sitting against Gerry, I guess, in the crushed velvet red dress) is probably part of the same set as the top right one? I know I've seen the full version of the top right one, where Madeleine's outstretched hand has a biscuit in it which she's offering to one of her sibs. Seems to me those pics (red velvet dress) were quite 'old' relatively speaking and one would have thought they'd have used something more recent to spread awareness of their 'abducted' child. I can't help but feel they chose the photo they did because it's especially sweet, and dare I say, somewhat flattering....not least because of the absence of the eye-bags which are so frequently present in other photos.

Well, before I say anything else - apart from a possible reason why she's wearing a hat in quite a few photographs, do look at this video - a few photos I'd never seen, but the one at .50 was really strange.
I'm just thinking that it would explain the hair, the photoshopped pictures and the liberal use of make up in many photos. I think her hair was highlighted and must frequently have been cut by a very good hairdresser. Let me know what you think.

tigger wrote:
Well, before I say anything else - apart from a possible reason why she's wearing a hat in quite a few photographs, do look at this video - a few photos I'd never seen, but the one at .50 was really strange.
I'm just thinking that it would explain the hair, the photoshopped pictures and the liberal use of make up in many photos. I think her hair was highlighted and must frequently have been cut by a very good hairdresser. Let me know what you think.

Video, Tigger? did you mean to add a link?

Wintabells wrote:

tigger wrote:
Well, before I say anything else - apart from a possible reason why she's wearing a hat in quite a few photographs, do look at this video - a few photos I'd never seen, but the one at .50 was really strange.
I'm just thinking that it would explain the hair, the photoshopped pictures and the liberal use of make up in many photos. I think her hair was highlighted and must frequently have been cut by a very good hairdresser. Let me know what you think.

Video, Tigger? did you mean to add a link?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ztlimuj1t8w&feature=related

Wintabels - the photo of madeleine with the odd shaped head of a sideways photo I believe is that she had her hair tied back in a pony tail prior to the photo. If you look, you can see the shadows of where a band would have been. On children this young they still have baby hair (I was a hairdresser)
Also her hair on the poolside photo is different from the tennis ball photo in that she still had baby hair. Baby hair usually changes after 3 years of age.

I thought the backgrounds on the three photos were different as well when you brought it to my attention and then could see they were the same.

I think they used this particular photo of Madeleine because it is very close up of her face showing her eye defect and is probably one of the clearest with her eye defect that there is.

tigger wrote:

Wintabells wrote:Hi Tigger.

I sort of think I know what you mean... but I think she's just got that sort of head shape where it goes quite high at the top/back?

D'you agree that the 'Campaign' photo (sitting against Gerry, I guess, in the crushed velvet red dress) is probably part of the same set as the top right one? I know I've seen the full version of the top right one, where Madeleine's outstretched hand has a biscuit in it which she's offering to one of her sibs. Seems to me those pics (red velvet dress) were quite 'old' relatively speaking and one would have thought they'd have used something more recent to spread awareness of their 'abducted' child. I can't help but feel they chose the photo they did because it's especially sweet, and dare I say, somewhat flattering....not least because of the absence of the eye-bags which are so frequently present in other photos.

Well, before I say anything else - apart from a possible reason why she's wearing a hat in quite a few photographs, do look at this video - a few photos I'd never seen, but the one at .50 was really strange.
I'm just thinking that it would explain the hair, the photoshopped pictures and the liberal use of make up in many photos. I think her hair was highlighted and must frequently have been cut by a very good hairdresser. Let me know what you think.

In the one at 0.50, I would say there could be a hint of hydrocephalus.

Wintabells wrote:Mods, please delete this pointless and embarassing topic of mine *cringe*

Hey! It's an interesting topic! It stays!

THE PICTURE ON FRONT OF BOOK HAS A RED DRESS,ON SECOND PICTURE THE CHIN SKIN GOES DOWN MORE ROUNDED.

AnnaEsse wrote:

tigger wrote:

Wintabells wrote:Hi Tigger.

I sort of think I know what you mean... but I think she's just got that sort of head shape where it goes quite high at the top/back?

D'you agree that the 'Campaign' photo (sitting against Gerry, I guess, in the crushed velvet red dress) is probably part of the same set as the top right one? I know I've seen the full version of the top right one, where Madeleine's outstretched hand has a biscuit in it which she's offering to one of her sibs. Seems to me those pics (red velvet dress) were quite 'old' relatively speaking and one would have thought they'd have used something more recent to spread awareness of their 'abducted' child. I can't help but feel they chose the photo they did because it's especially sweet, and dare I say, somewhat flattering....not least because of the absence of the eye-bags which are so frequently present in other photos.

Well, before I say anything else - apart from a possible reason why she's wearing a hat in quite a few photographs, do look at this video - a few photos I'd never seen, but the one at .50 was really strange.
I'm just thinking that it would explain the hair, the photoshopped pictures and the liberal use of make up in many photos. I think her hair was highlighted and must frequently have been cut by a very good hairdresser. Let me know what you think.

In the one at 0.50, I would say there could be a hint of hydrocephalus.

Exactly, and that fits in with the wearing of hats, photographs taken at an angle and I'm convinced the side on in the red dress also shows an extension of the skull - imo we now have a reason for photoshopping and worse.

LJC wrote:I thought the backgrounds on the three photos were different as well when you brought it to my attention and then could see they were the same.

I think they used this particular photo of Madeleine because it is very close up of her face showing her eye defect and is probably one of the clearest with her eye defect that there is.

I hope you are aware there was no eye defect. They admitted this themselves in an interview with Piers Morgan in May 2011 - they said they never made much of it!!! and that is was only a fleck you could only see from very close by.
Consequently all photographs that show the coloboma are photoshopped. The poster photo is heavily 'doctored' skin bleached out, etc. She didn't look anything like that. The photo dates from when she was about two and half years old. If you see the tennis photo you'd not even know it was the same girl.

I think she just has her dad's shaped head (and ears).

Actually Kate has quite large ears too. Maddie certainly had large ears for a little girl. It's a pity the face of the other child on the photo is blurred, but if you look at the shape of the head of the other child, it's quite different.
Sorry to go on about this, but I've taught life drawing, do a lot of it and proportion is everything. Maddie's head just is too big at the top back. As Anna said of the video at .50 - it could almost be hydrocephalus.
And that would explain an awful lot.

[/quote]

I hope you are aware there was no eye defect. They admitted this themselves in an interview with Piers Morgan in May 2011 - they said they never made much of it!!! and that is was only a fleck you could only see from very close by.
Consequently all photographs that show the coloboma are photoshopped. The poster photo is heavily 'doctored' skin bleached out, etc. She didn't look anything like that. The photo dates from when she was about two and half years old. If you see the tennis photo you'd not even know it was the same girl. [/quote]

My husband didn't know it was the same child! He recognises the image from Kates book as Madeleine, had no idea who the tennis pic child was! Or the ''last photo'' child.

tigger wrote:Actually Kate has quite large ears too. Maddie certainly had large ears for a little girl. It's a pity the face of the other child on the photo is blurred, but if you look at the shape of the head of the other child, it's quite different.
Sorry to go on about this, but I've taught life drawing, do a lot of it and proportion is everything. Maddie's head just is too big at the top back. As Anna said of the video at .50 - it could almost be hydrocephalus.
And that would explain an awful lot.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELEINE_PHOTOS.htm I can't see that in any of these photos the child's head size or shape is outside of the normal range, or at least not to the extent that hydrocephalus could be suspected. It's usually the front part of the head that is abnormally and noticeably large. Other physical symptoms don't appear to be present either, such as eyes that appear to gaze downward, obvious veins on the skull, etc.

Wintabells wrote:

tigger wrote:Actually Kate has quite large ears too. Maddie certainly had large ears for a little girl. It's a pity the face of the other child on the photo is blurred, but if you look at the shape of the head of the other child, it's quite different.
Sorry to go on about this, but I've taught life drawing, do a lot of it and proportion is everything. Maddie's head just is too big at the top back. As Anna said of the video at .50 - it could almost be hydrocephalus.
And that would explain an awful lot.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELEINE_PHOTOS.htm I can't see that in any of these photos the child's head size or shape is outside of the normal range, or at least not to the extent that hydrocephalus could be suspected. It's usually the front part of the head that is abnormally and noticeably large. Other physical symptoms don't appear to be present either, such as eyes that appear to gaze downward, obvious veins on the skull, etc.

I was looking at proportions too and how high Madeleine's forehead looks. And if you look on Google images, many of the children would not obviously have hydrocephalus. The measurement from the top of the head to the eyes, is usually roughly the same as the eyes to the chin.

I dunno... All three of them have high foreheads and all look perfectly well to me.

Wintabells wrote:

I dunno... All three of them have high foreheads and all look perfectly well to me.

But look at the back of Madeleine's head - is it not a long parting?

Freeze the video at 1.33 - that's one weird shaped head to me!!

Well she was ALMOST perfect as Gerry McCann has said.