Madeleine in red dress photos

Wintabells wrote:

Lioned wrote:If the purpose of this thread is to establish/speculate as to wether or not Maddie had some physical or mental deformity which would somehow explain away the abhorant behaviour of Her parents then i got to say i am very uncomfortable with that.

I agree. And, as the thread starter, can I just note that I started it to see if anyone knew when the red dress photos were taken and what was going on in the background. I've established the latter, but not the former.

And for the record, I don't think there's anything abnormal about Madeleine's head shape and these kinds of discussions seem somewhat gratuitous to me. Even if there was an abnormality, I have never had the sense that Madeleine was anything other than an adored and happy child. Her parents, however, made (in my view) a fatal error in their parenting of some kind and staged neglect and abduction to avoid losing their other two as well as their reputations and ability to continue to work in medicine.

Wintabells, I know a few adored and happy children with disabilities. We have one in our family, who is cherished, loved and considered to be a gift.

G. Amaral states, in his book, that 'The medical files, requested several times from Great Britain were never sent to us. These could have been deciding factors. Why didn't we have access to them? We never knew the truth of the matter. It's deplorable that the British legal system could be quite so uncooperative in this type of situation...'

I was just reading this http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077870/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2027 and thinking about how confusing all the information and misinformation is for us all. See below:


''The Portuguese police failed to justify their request for obtaining details about Gerry McCann's credit card transactions over a period of 6 months, starting one month before Madeleine's disappearance. As it turned out, the reason why they made the request was based on a witness statement that turned out to be wrong.

The PJ didn't ask for bank statements, they did ask for background information, which was supplied by the Home Office.

The PJ didn't ask permission to examine the McCann's mobile phone records (they obtained them from the three Portuguese national telephone operators). They asked for identification of the owners of 44 (mobile) telephone numbers. The Home Office supplied them with a list of the subscribers.

The PJ didn't ask for Madeleine's medical records. They asked for her dental records. The Home Office supplied them with these.

According to Correio da Manhã (see footnote) it was the the Public Ministry who decided that the PJ should not access Madeleine's clinical records.''

Wintabells wrote:G. Amaral states, in his book, that 'The medical files, requested several times from Great Britain were never sent to us. These could have been deciding factors. Why didn't we have access to them? We never knew the truth of the matter. It's deplorable that the British legal system could be quite so uncooperative in this type of situation...'

I was just reading this http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39077870/Rebuttal%20of%20%22Fact%22%2027 and thinking about how confusing all the information and misinformation is for us all. See below:


''The Portuguese police failed to justify their request for obtaining details about Gerry McCann's credit card transactions over a period of 6 months, starting one month before Madeleine's disappearance. As it turned out, the reason why they made the request was based on a witness statement that turned out to be wrong.

The PJ didn't ask for bank statements, they did ask for background information, which was supplied by the Home Office.





The PJ didn't ask permission to examine the McCann's mobile phone records (they obtained them from the three Portuguese national telephone operators). They asked for identification of the owners of 44 (mobile) telephone numbers. The Home Office supplied them with a list of the subscribers.

The PJ didn't ask for Madeleine's medical records. They asked for her dental records. The Home Office supplied them with these.

According to Correio da Manhã (see footnote) it was the the Public Ministry who decided that the PJ should not access Madeleine's clinical records.''

Morning Wintabells, thanks for the link, very informative...........

I picked out this bit:-

Addendum Rogatory letter
point XXII - Delete, replacing it by the following: "To request details of all the transaction on the mastercard credit cards accounts known to be used by Gerald McCann (mastercard account numbers ************ and *************. We request these transactions from the 1st April 2007, approximately one month before the McCann came to Portugal, to the 30 Sept 2007, shortly after they returned to the UK. This will enable the investigation team to ascertain if any relevant payments or transactions were made from the accounts. This will assist the investigation to identify if there are any unknown motives behind the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, or aid the identification of an individual or individuals responsible for her disappearance. To date the McCanns have not identified any such payments or transactions to the investigation team."

Why would the McCanns refuse?

As to the way this thread has developed, I havn"t posted because it was developing into the realms of fantasy. Obviously, because there is nothing new to discuss about the Madeleine case some Members are coming out with outlandish theories to keep it alive and common sense got lost in the process.

Panda wrote:
As to the way this thread has developed, I havn"t posted because it was developing into the realms of fantasy. Obviously, because there is nothing new to discuss about the Madeleine case some Members are coming out with outlandish theories to keep it alive and common sense got lost in the process.
Unquote.






From the McCann files: 'The truth of the lie'

Point:
38 - Madeleine's health records were really important and were asked for with insistence. However, they were not sent. Historically, in these types of siuations, apparently the UK is not very cooperative. And the secrecy between doctors and patients was also a setback. Her eye detail may be related to other health problems but without medical records it was not able to confirm this.


Panda, I was under the impression this was a forum for discussion and I have found it to be the case. If you disagree with the thread, why then post a disclaimer which I find rather insulting - without having entered the discussion.

Maddie's parents are the source of much misinformation, starting with photographs which were taken over 18 months before her disappearance. That alone is clearly not helpful to a search for the child. There is proof that the coloboma did not exist and therefore must have been added to many photographs.
The logical question to ask therefore is why was this misinformation necessary?

One question often throws up another, AnnaEsse and I suddenly realized that there are no birthday party photographs, no Maddie with friends - so why not? For that reason alone the thread is useful.
If you choose to ignore visual evidence, or see this simply as wrongly interpreted, then the forum is for stating such opinions.

Are there actually no photos/videos or are they just not in the public domain? Give me one good reason why the McCanns are obligated to show any pictures if they don't wish to. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

I have said before that I thought that there were not that many photos of madeleine. Especially in this digital world.
She went to a nursery every day nearly, so she must have had playmates to have had parties with, where many photos would have been taken?
I think the lack of photos on the holidays that they had especially in PDL is questionable.
However they may just want to keep back a lot of photos for their own privacy?

mariang wrote:I have said before that I thought that there were not that many photos of madeleine. Especially in this digital world.
She went to a nursery every day nearly, so she must have had playmates to have had parties with, where many photos would have been taken?
I think the lack of photos on the holidays that they had especially in PDL is questionable.
However they may just want to keep back a lot of photos for their own privacy?

They don't have to publish any photos if they don't wish to. The question is, thinking of some high profile murder or abduction cases, exactly how many photos do we see on average? Probably 3 or 4, 6 at the most and yet in this case people seem to expect to see the whole of Madeleine's life on video/photographs and because they haven't seen them are finding it highly suspicious. Makes no sense to me.

mariang wrote:I have said before that I thought that there were not that many photos of madeleine. Especially in this digital world.
She went to a nursery every day nearly, so she must have had playmates to have had parties with, where many photos would have been taken?
I think the lack of photos on the holidays that they had especially in PDL is questionable.
However they may just want to keep back a lot of photos for their own privacy?

Considering the details of their sex lives in the book, I don't think TM are too bothered about privacy.
The PJ recovered all the holiday photographs (all deleted so are recovered in black and white) there are few which might be Madeleine - but they were deleted by the McCanns so not kept for themselves.

Just want to add: every time I say something about Maddie not being 'beautiful' I get a lot of flak, this is so symptomatic of the present climate of 'beauty'.
Why does she have to be beautiful to be loved? She just has to be her lovely self.

tigger wrote:Panda wrote:
As to the way this thread has developed, I havn"t posted because it was developing into the realms of fantasy. Obviously, because there is nothing new to discuss about the Madeleine case some Members are coming out with outlandish theories to keep it alive and common sense got lost in the process.
Unquote.






From the McCann files: 'The truth of the lie'

Point:
38 - Madeleine's health records were really important and were asked for with insistence. However, they were not sent. Historically, in these types of siuations, apparently the UK is not very cooperative. And the secrecy between doctors and patients was also a setback. Her eye detail may be related to other health problems but without medical records it was not able to confirm this.


Panda, I was under the impression this was a forum for discussion and I have found it to be the case. If you disagree with the thread, why then post a disclaimer which I find rather insulting - without having entered the discussion.

Maddie's parents are the source of much misinformation, starting with photographs which were taken over 18 months before her disappearance. That alone is clearly not helpful to a search for the child. There is proof that the coloboma did not exist and therefore must have been added to many photographs.
The logical question to ask therefore is why was this misinformation necessary?

One question often throws up another, AnnaEsse and I suddenly realized that there are no birthday party photographs, no Maddie with friends - so why not? For that reason alone the thread is useful.
If you choose to ignore visual evidence, or see this simply as wrongly interpreted, then the forum is for stating such opinions.

Tigger, there are well over 2000 posts on that thread and the reason I didn't post was because I did not agree with some of the opinions and the way poor little Madeleine was being dissected. If you feel insulted I suggest you read the thread at your leisure .
insulted, we all have

They cant be that bothered about their privacy can they - after all hasnt Kate written a book with very personal things of their life in?
No, we dont usually see so many photos of murdered people or folks that have been abducted. But hasnt this case been 'glamorised' by the mccanns in that its been kept so 'in the news' with their constant faces????? Almost of a celebrity status?

Angelina wrote:Are there actually no photos/videos or are they just not in the public domain? Give me one good reason why the McCanns are obligated to show any pictures if they don't wish to. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

Exactly Angelina!

I can't comment about the book because I haven't read it. The few lines I've seen quoted from it have been enough to put me off reading it properly.

Yes, the McCanns have kept it in the public eye but I still don't see how that automatically means that the public should expect to see all their photographs if they don't wish to publicise them. Even if it could be proved that they didn't bother with videos/photos of their children that just makes them weird parents and is not necessarily indicative of anything.

Angelina wrote:

I can't comment about the book because I haven't read it. The few lines I've seen quoted from it have been enough to put me off reading it properly.

Yes, the McCanns have kept it in the public eye but I still don't see how that automatically means that the public should expect to see all their photographs if they don't wish to publicise them. Even if it could be proved that they didn't bother with videos/photos of their children that just makes them weird parents and is not necessarily indicative of anything.

I'm simply pointing out that publishing photographs of her birthday parties, Maddie with her one, two and three candled cake, would be logical in view of the many not very private photographs they have published. The book was supposed to be about Maddie but most of it is about Kate. From the book we still know next to nothing about Maddie, the games she liked to play, the funny things she did and said. Pretty well zero, but we are fully informed of private details of her parents' life.

The book is very personal - it relates as a biography of Kates. A lot of unnecessary reading if its for the 'truth' of Madeleines abduction.
What I would be more interested in knowing re photos - is that for someone who has been 'stolen' and everyone in the world needs to know what she looked like at the time of this, is why there are a lot of photos pre 3 years of age and less closer to the time of her disappearance. The many photos of her at a much younger age dont help including the one on the cover of kates book. Why put up photos of a much younger child and very few of the age when she has gone?

If the book is more about Kate than Madeleine that doesn't that just go to prove that they are selfish parents..only selfish parents leave 3 small children alone to go and have dinner.

As to reading about all the things Madeleine liked etc, if the book is supposed to be about the truth of what happened, then personal things about Madeleine are not actually necessary. It's information about what happened on the holiday that everybody wants to read about.

Plus selfish parents may not necessarily know what their children like/dislike.

Then the book would read of a 7 day 'diary' and would have only been a paragraph for a day.
'got up, showered, had breakfast, fed the kids, took them to the creche, played tennis, picked the kids up for lunch, had lunch, took them back to the creche, picked kids up again, had high tea, put them in the bath, put them to bed.
That would be it, wouldnt it?
She is not going to put what we might think happened is she?
So not really much point in writing a book is there? OR putting old photos in that are irrelevant to a madeleine of 4 years of age.

mariang wrote:Then the book would read of a 7 day 'diary' and would have only been a paragraph for a day.
'got up, showered, had breakfast, fed the kids, took them to the creche, played tennis, picked the kids up for lunch, had lunch, took them back to the creche, picked kids up again, had high tea, put them in the bath, put them to bed.
That would be it, wouldnt it?
She is not going to put what we might think happened is she?
So not really much point in writing a book is there? OR putting old photos in that are irrelevant to a madeleine of 4 years of age.

I agree, no point...apart from money

But I still dont understand that aspect of it in all of this. I know that a lot of money has and was raised but it wasnt millions and millions was it? Possibly only 2 million? (correct me if Im wrong)
Why put yourselves through this for such a relatively paltry amount.....that is what I dont understand.
They were hardly poverty stricken!
If they were involved in her demise, surely they would want to leave quietly - especially after all of these years?
I just dont get it all!!!
Perhaps I am looking at it all from my own logical behaviour.

mariang wrote:But I still dont understand that aspect of it in all of this. I know that a lot of money has and was raised but it wasnt millions and millions was it? Possibly only 2 million? (correct me if Im wrong)
Why put yourselves through this for such a relatively paltry amount.....that is what I dont understand.
They were hardly poverty stricken!
If they were involved in her demise, surely they would want to leave quietly - especially after all of these years?
I just dont get it all!!!
Perhaps I am looking at it all from my own logical behaviour.

Now you are asking all the questions I've been asking for years...and still can't figure it out

All I know is that if I had lost a child, I'd have been publishing THE MOST RECENT photo, no matter how cute he/she was as a toddler. And it wouldn't be photoshopped, and it wouldn't have taken me weeks. It would have taken as long as it takes to open the camera and give the flash card to the police.

And there are practically NO recent photos of Madeleine out there, at all. I know because I made a You Tube video and out of the 22 photos I found and used, there were only about 2 that could be considered "current". The rest were all cutesy toddler photos of a year-old, 18month old or baby Maddie, practically none of her at almost 4. What use is that in trying to identify a child?

Or maybe that was the whole point.

Angelina wrote:Are there actually no photos/videos or are they just not in the public domain? Give me one good reason why the McCanns are obligated to show any pictures if they don't wish to. It doesn't mean they don't exist.

Because they keep asking the public to "look for Maddie" and we need to know what we are supposed to be looking for.

Exactly Iris - that is what I was saying about so few photos......I meant recent photos - close to the age she disappeared from......easy enough to modify if there are other children on - as thye are well aware!!!!!!
Everything tells me that the evidence points to guilt and a fabrication of the events and clear neglect....but not the money....its not enough money to want to be in this deep! Also, how is any more going to be raised? Other than a few 'pro mcanns' very few people care anymore this far down the line to give any more money. And how many more books can be written with any more information from Kate?
So do you think this will all go quiet and the mccanns will slip away?
I have recently been reading the jonbennet case - could not help but notice similar points!

Angelina wrote:

mariang wrote:But I still dont understand that aspect of it in all of this. I know that a lot of money has and was raised but it wasnt millions and millions was it? Possibly only 2 million? (correct me if Im wrong)
Why put yourselves through this for such a relatively paltry amount.....that is what I dont understand.
They were hardly poverty stricken!
If they were involved in her demise, surely they would want to leave quietly - especially after all of these years?
I just dont get it all!!!
Perhaps I am looking at it all from my own logical behaviour.

Now you are asking all the questions I've been asking for years...and still can't figure it out

I think the Mc's might like it all to have died down by now but they must fear the strength of the thesis against them and fret about The Truth of The Lie washing up on these shores in an official translation. This means that they must continue to gag whilst continuing to promote their innocence, a book is a good way of showing a brass-neck even if it does not earn much. It can also lead to other things like acolades of 'book of the year' etc adding to the 'we are innocent' publicity. Also whilst they are in litigation it will be impoortant to keep getting the message across that we are innocent - otherwise it just looks ultra defensive and casts even longer darker shadows upon them - IMO.

(Sorry if this is a bit off topic)

How can they go away when there are so many people questioning them....they have no choice but to carry on and also the main reason...the twins....they will read the Internet properly soon so the mccanns have to deny anything that is put put there regarding THEM.


I would like to know....what was the fund really set up for....was it set up for one thing in the beginning and now it is for something totally different.

I think we have more chance of finding Shergar or Lord Lucan - at least we have some idea as to what they actually looked like!