The 'Other' Final Photo

She certainly didn't look happy in that photo; maybe drugged.

As for the mainstream media falling over itself to describe it as a normal family photo - words fail me!

It could be a kid's make-up set. I think such a thing would contain hideous frosted blue eyeshadow.

Iris wrote:

kitti wrote:

Wintabells wrote:Although I think that the 'last photo' is highly suspicious, given how much they've talked about it, I don't see the make-up photo as anything other than a typical photo of a little girl showing off. My own daughter was obsessed with wearing strings of beads (literally twenty or so), having me put lipstick and eye shadow on her face (I don't even wear this myself) and having photos taken of her all dressed up 'like a lady' when she was about 3.  She would always pull a weird face for the photos, I think because she was trying to look grown up and her lips felt weird with all that lipstick on, lol. I think Madeleine was a typical little girl and did the same. Why they thought it was appropriate to share these photos with the world, given the circumstances, I'll never know.

Quiet right, girls do dress up and out mummy's lipstick on.....but doing the eyes is odd and it looks like a grown up has put the eyes shadow  on....the fact is, that picture should not be in the public demain

And according to the press releases by Pinkie, it was just a wee innocent girl playing in Mummy's makeup box.
Have any of you ever seen Mummy Kate wearing eyeshadow THAT colour???  
And whoever wrote about the "dead eyes" is right.  I have seen a couple of corpses myself (dead relatives) and that is exactly what the eyes look like.
This is going to haunt me tonight now  

I am unsure if I want to ask these questions or not. But that photo and the fact it was released was a surprise to me.

However, one aspect that maybe we are missing. If it was taken after, what would have been the purpose of doing this and releasing it? It does not seem to prove anything.

And the second question. What do you mean about the eyes? How do they look different or what makes them appear like those relatives? If this question is too difficult to answer, I completely understand. It is difficult to write about this.

It is difficult to describe DavidA. Just glassy, big pupils, cold and dead. Staring right at you. You know that there is nothing behind them. I suppose you would get the same effect if somebody had been heavily sedated but as I have never seen anybody like that then I don't know.

I've not really looked at that picture before as I thought it was totally inappropriate to release such a photo but now I've looked at the eyes, I see what you mean Iris. Quite chilling when you have a good look.

I never thought I would want to post this comment, but I remember seeing a different photo the McCanns released (I think quite soon after the disappearance). When I had more knowledge about the case then saw again the photo, I wondered 'is she alive in that photo?'. But I decided at that moment that it must just be me being stupid. But every time I saw that photo afterwards I could not stop that feeling. It was maybe 3 years ago that I last saw this photo, and I do not know how to describe the photo. It was Madeleine face / head only in the photo I think. I remember thinking she seemed like a doll in it. It was a photo used a lot in the media.

Could it be this one David?
 
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7514p40-reasons-to-be-cheerful-by-dr-martin-roberts

By coincidence it has been said there recently that the image looks more like a porcelain doll than a child.

Where's the Coloboma?  (The one in my avatar has been cropped from another picture of Maddie and has not been altered in any way.  Not by me, anyway.)



OK, so which one has been photoshopped, and why, because clearly one of them has.

Iris wrote:

Where's the Coloboma?  (The one in my avatar has been cropped from another picture of Maddie and has not been altered in any way.  Not by me, anyway.)

Sheeeeiiite! It's not there!  

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Could it be this one David?
 
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7514p40-reasons-to-be-cheerful-by-dr-martin-roberts

By coincidence it has been said there recently that the image looks more like a porcelain doll than a child.

And after I posted I search and found this link. I think this is the same photo, and from the Mirror (so maybe this is from the archives the Mirror had from 2007).

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-british-police-denied-2034108


There is something about this photo that really makes me worried.

unusually dark eyelashes for a child so fair.

Iris wrote:

Where's the Coloboma?  (The one in my avatar has been cropped from another picture of Maddie and has not been altered in any way.  Not by me, anyway.)



OK, so which one has been photoshopped, and why, because clearly one of them has.

To make it more complicated, in the photo that I linked above the eye are something in the middle of the two in your post.

To change from red to black is easy if the 'Remove red eye' tool of photoshop is used. But this does not make the rest of the eye green.

This is strange, and shows that using photoshop with the images of Madeleine was maybe common for them.

From the PJ's page for missing people. This is a Google translation.

Particular signs:
Small signal in the skin, brown in color, the twin of the left leg. Eyes: Blue and green left eye, right eye green with brown spot in iris

http://www.policiajudiciaria.pt/PortalWeb/page/%7BB22ED3A0-BAF1-471D-AFDA-AFF94B9BB24B%7D

DavidA wrote:

Iris wrote:

Where's the Coloboma?  (The one in my avatar has been cropped from another picture of Maddie and has not been altered in any way.  Not by me, anyway.)



OK, so which one has been photoshopped, and why, because clearly one of them has.

To make it more complicated, in the photo that I linked above the eye are something in the middle of the two in your post.

To change from red to black is easy if the 'Remove red eye' tool of photoshop is used. But this does not make the rest of the eye green.

This is strange, and shows that using photoshop with the images of Madeleine was maybe common for them.

The differences in eye colour and skin tones are explainable (one is a digital photo and the other has been scanned from a magazine). But the no-longer-existent coloboma is not explainable, unless one of them has been photoshopped!

Iris wrote:The differences in eye colour and skin tones are explainable (one is a digital photo and the other has been scanned from a magazine).  But the no-longer-existent coloboma is not explainable, unless one of them has been photoshopped!

If I remember well, at the time of the disappearance people and the media were not aware of the coloboma. I think this information arrived later.

I think there were a number of concerns with the original information McCanns had given about Madeleine, about how old she looked, the eye, and her behavior.

And here we see different pictures released (I do not believe the media would do change with photoshop for a missing child) that have been changed. In my opinion, the green eyed one looks like the modified one.

It does connect with the adding confusion theory,

DavidA wrote:

Iris wrote:The differences in eye colour and skin tones are explainable (one is a digital photo and the other has been scanned from a magazine).  But the no-longer-existent coloboma is not explainable, unless one of them has been photoshopped!

If I remember well, at the time of the disappearance people and the media were not aware of the coloboma. I think this information arrived later.

I think there were a number of concerns with the original information McCanns had given about Madeleine, about how old she looked, the eye, and her behavior.

And here we see different pictures released (I do not believe the media would do change with photoshop for a missing child) that have been changed. In my opinion, the green eyed one looks like the modified one.

It does connect with the adding confusion theory,

Yet, the description on the PJ's page for missing people says that her right eye is green.

Hang on (sorry been missing for quite a long time from this forum). Hang on, I remember taking photos of my neice aged around 12/13, when she had spots and pimples all over her pretty face and, not wanting her to get hung up about it (like I used to be when I was that age) I took them to a guy who made most of them disappear, leaving a few for good measure but he 'faded' them a bit so even they didn't look so bad. Because there was a delay of about two weeks from me taking her photos to handing the set over to her, some of her spots and pimples had healed and others had broken out in new places, but the bottom line is she had no idea what I had done, she looked so pretty in the pictures and was proud to show them off to her friends.

Its just crossing my mind that Madeleine might have started to get hung up about her eye, especially on close up shots, so they got rid of it for her sake? Or, they thought she might start to get hung up about it when she becomes older, so on any close up shots that go in the family album they will improve it.

I know my own (grown up now) lads cringe at some of the pictures we took back in the day, before photoshopping was heard of and they now hate some of the pictures saying they had hair sticking out in odd places or too much ice cream around their mouths and I'm banned from getting some of the old pictures out.

To me, they were natural and lovely but to them they are a complete embarassment.

why would a child that age know she had such a mark, unless it was pointed out to her regularly, so sorry need to disagree that she had a thing about the mark in her eye, which now is just a mere fleck.

The one on the right (above) looks like it's had a circle photoshopped in, just under the pupil.  If you knock out a circle it looks just like the one on the left, which is just a fleck.

tanszi wrote:why would a child that age know she had such a mark, unless it was pointed out to her regularly, so sorry need to disagree that she had a thing about the mark in her eye, which now is just a mere fleck.

Please read my post again. What I actually said was "Its just crossing my mind that Madeleine might have started to get hung up about her eye". Meaning, that could happen well into the future and it may be a reason for photoshopping her eye on close up pics in readiness for when she's older, like a teenager, ready for when she decides to flick through old pics of herself. Its teenagers who tend to get hung up on old photos of themselves and I do know of parents who photoshop away flaws on close up facial pictures even though their children are only small. They call it looking ahead to the children getting to the adolescent (and often embarassed) age.

I never did it for my own two sons purely because it wasn't an option for me back in the 1980's when my kids were little as we didn't have a computer back then let alone a decent camera, but I did do it on a photo of my neice recently, as stated in my original post, to save her blushes with her spots and pimples.

You might be right of course, but really 3 is still the cutie age, so can't see it TBH.