2 May 2010

McCanns release Madeleine's "lolita" photo and a new 3-years-of-disappearance video




«Madeleine McCann - Still Missing, Still Missed, Still Looking » from the Find Madeleine youtube channel, the latest video of the McCann's campaign, produced by Jon Corner (godfather of the McCann's twins and filmmaker/director of River Media Productions)



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 fund-raising 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."

 in Press Association


Mark Williams-Thomas questions the 'appropriateness' of the new Madeleine photo via Twitter

* On the eve of Madeleine's disappearance I agree with the release of a new photo but question the appropriateness of the photo chosen

* Have not yet seen the new Madeleine video but the photograph is so inappropriate & damaging on so many levels-ill advised again

* Am trying to find out now who gave advise to use the make up photo- so damaging- as I know what it will become

thanks to Nige from the McCann files for the above post



150 comments:

  1. Look closely at the photo of made-up Madeleine with a picture editing program.
    Magnify it to 400%
    a- The girl on the photo has no eyelashes. Colour has been digitally added on top, hiding them. Compare with another pic of Madeleine, she has noticeable eyelashes, which have now disappeared.
    b- No trace of coloboma
    c- Two obvious brush tool traces above the eye on the right of the pic.
    d- pixels of the face (very smooth) do not match pixels outside the face.
    e- compare eyebrows on the pic with eyebrows on another photo of Madeleine. They don't match.
    There are other mismatches.

    The picture is an obvious and not very good photoshop type job.
    Why would they do this?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Saw this blue eye shadow picture on Skye news and had to surpress the urge to vomit. Is there no end to the tacky second class behaviour of her parents and the likes of Jon Corner. Is it humanly possible, that this is what has become of the memory of Madeleine Mccann, whether alive or possibly deceased. Is there no limit to the injustices done to this little girl.

    ReplyDelete
  3. im sorry but the mccanns have got to be stopped,what sort of image are they sending out here about madeleine,and in my mind madeleine did not put this make up on herself and would you believe good old john corner is involved with this video.hmmmmm

    ReplyDelete
  4. Is it just me but this video seems to be just one subliminal message after another. Disgusting and very dangerous. Madeleine is no longer a little girl but a sex object. What sick mind came up with this seriously needs examining.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sky showed another picture of Madeleine this morning,it showed Madeleine lying on her back ,looking up into a camera,i found that disturbing because the person taking the photo would of had to be over Madeleine surely,i think the photo is in the video too in a frame on Kates desk,it's very disturbing to me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I suppose Dido knows the Mccanns are using her lovely song for this despicable video
    I am afraid I will not be able to listen to this track ever again without feeling sick

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's interesting the sensation that the photo has caused among the public. See, the truth has always this magic way to come to light when is not expected. That due this games McCanns will be caught in the end. And the fall will happens inside UK. No is not a prophecy ... is already happening! If Cameron lose the election many things will go wrong for these two. As someone said here a long time, ministers are not eternal and we will see exactly what will happen soon...very soon!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jon Corner has a very disturbing taste. Remember Kate's woosh-clunk and the other photos of Madeleine?
    This man should be stopped.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm sure i read somewhere that John Corner bought cuddle cat for Madeleines 4th birthday,but i can't remember where i read it,if true he must of given it to her before her birthday because of the coverage of it being held by Kate and it being so special (apparently)to Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The picture is inappropriate in present circumstances, for reasons obvious to all responsible parents/adults.

    What were they thinking of?

    A.Miller

    ReplyDelete
  11. This photograph is disgusting. The child was three years old!

    But it seems this has been made to look like this!

    Something very sick going on here.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This is not meant to be mean, just wondering about the ears. Have never seen ears like that on a small child. It could be that I could just not cope with seeing a little girl with hooker make-up on, poor child, never had a chance.

    ReplyDelete
  13. i had a reply from the conservatives to say that McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell would not be WORKING for the mccanns while he was employed by them,bloody liars

    ReplyDelete
  14. So a leading professional photographer comes to Rothley from London to take Lolita type pictures of Madeleine, weeks before she disappears.

    Check out who owns photo copyright!

    ReplyDelete
  15. The photographs were shown tonight on Belgian tv (in prime time). The comments were neutral.
    In our country -as in many other countries- people are not that interested in the McCann case.
    Nevertheless it shows that the McCann machine is still able to send out every thinkable message to and through press agencies.
    We wonder why?
    Why do they think it is necessary c.q. suitable to recall old memories?
    Roland

    ReplyDelete
  16. This photograph says it all.
    No more questions, no more riddles.
    This the the last page of your story.
    We now already know the end.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mccanns have used the photograph of Maddie in make up to create controversy and stir up the public they are winding down their campaign and are getting ready to start a new life somewhere else they will blame everybody and say it is too painful living in Rothley and need to get away. They have made millions from this campaign much more money than people realise. The Madeleine Fund was just a front, for the wider agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nothing in this case has upset me quite as much as this. I am blessed with two daughters who are the light of my life; there is no way I could bring myself to treat them in this manner. Is there any other mother out there who would invite the world to peruse such a suggestive picture of her beloved child, while claiming that that child has been abducted, presumably by a paedophile?

    It is all becoming surreal, and near unbearable.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @ 12 - Agreed - just look at the ears this is not a genuine photograph !!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  20. To me it looks like a threat to somebody. Protect us or we will spill the beans.

    ReplyDelete
  21. A thought came to me today when I saw yet another photo of Madeleine in a suggestive pose.
    What if they are trying to tell us something, but dare not.They can`t really be as stupid as they would have us believe. Let`s face it they`ve dropped a lot of clangers in 3 years. I bet they want it over with
    I do think top people are involved in this dreadful case. People with power & the need to cover up at all costs.
    Has anyone else thought these two choice parents may be out of control & possibly in danger themselves?
    Clarry is busy right now & can`t guide them. I think they are going off the rails.

    I really can`t foresee the end to this for any of them. There is nowhere in the world they can move to without being known.
    Pehaps they know a good plastic surgeon.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh my goodness, what mother would allow a photograph of their young daughter to be distributed on the internet like this, it just makes me shiver. Can't beleive what they are doing. Surely social services should step in if this is what they are up to.

    ReplyDelete
  23. The parents of a child who really had been abducted by paedophiles would never approve this video - the photos are simply inappropriate.
    What kind of people advise the McCanns?
    I wonder if Jim Gamble of CEOP will comment.

    ReplyDelete
  24. IMO it is an attempt to get over the idea that Madeleine was capable of appearing to be a lot older than she actually was. This would then prepare the way for pointing the finger at Hewlett, who is of course known to have had a penchant for girls somewhat older than Madeleine's almost 4 years.

    Watch out for comments from the parents, spokesman, family friends or indeed family, to the effect that Madeleine could often look older than her real age, thus implying that Hewlett could have made a mistake and assumed she was older.

    It is the discrepancy in preferred age of the victim that is the major stumbling block to convincing the public that Hewlett was the 'abductor'.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Who painted Madeleine's face

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anon@20: my thoughts precisely. I have *never* said I had any certainties about what happened to Madeleine (other that I believe she's dead, the McCanns know exactly what happened, and they have --- so far --- been protected).

    However this photograph beggars belief. Either they are out of their mind and are laughing at the reaction of the public, or this is a threat (or a warning) to somebody.

    It is sick beyond belief and there is no other explanation.
    I wonder if this is what Madeleine looked like the night she died?

    Anon@17: yes they may well move house. Personally I suspect they are finished socially among friends, neighbours, colleagues and acquaintances.
    British society is not forgiving and they are a pair of diseased freaks, at best negligent parents, running a freak show. Who among the professional classes would want to socialise with these two?

    ReplyDelete
  27. http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2008/12/dr-david-payne-jon-corner-and-those.html

    "30.12.08
    Dr David Payne, Jon Corner and those sleazy comments"

    Jon Corner, the one who said:

    “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.”

    Oh yes! Some bastards had alredy picked up on that before May 3rd 2007...those holding the camera that took those shots!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Where is the Madeleine's guardian in all this, that these photos are being published worldwide. Who takes this type of staged photos of a three year old girl? imo entirely inappropriate.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I've seen another photo which I described some weeks ago on this site where M is wearing eye liner and lipstick, draped in a blue scarf. Jo-Benet Ramsey springs to mind. Chilling that parents can see nothing disturbing about this image? I think 20 is correct.
    It's quite disgusting and two children remain in the care of this family. Whoever has protected them should take full responsibility for this.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The photograph doesn't even look like Madeleine.

    It is tragically sad, that poor little girl. A little girl who will never now get the chance to grow up.

    Why on earth would the McCanns want to put this photo out there for people to see. Especially as if Madeleine was still alive she would not even look like that.

    How to fathom the McCanns.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I was working with a team of psychiatrists and various therapists until last year. One of my colleagues at the time did an awful lot of work with children and adolescents. She pointed out that the published photographs of Madeleine McCann were those of an abused child. I did comment on 3As at the time and was shot down. I cannot remember how my colleague quantified this but she said they were trained to spot abused children from various aspects because as we all know it is not something a child would just tell, just as teachers are trained to spot abuse by asking kids to write about what happened over the weekend/holidays etc.

    Now this, wholly unsuitable photograph!

    ReplyDelete
  32. This is truly shocking. I watched the video and felt sick. I agree it's a threat to someone. The poor little child just keeps on being violated. It's beyond sick now. Somebody stop them please, for the sake of public decency.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Anon 20 - Exactly my first thought too. Why else would this be done?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Looks like Cameron will win the UK, election, I know Clarrie the clown is working for the Consevatives, but its Brown who hepled the Maccanns is it not.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I am rather shocked to find myself agreeing with Mark Williams Thomas. I thought I was quite dispassionate about this case, but those images make me feel physically quite sick. I'm finding the whole issue just too difficult to comprehend.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Just shock, horror and total disgust, this is a real new low, even for the McCanns.

    Poor little Madeleine, what did she ever mean to this gruesome couple?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anon20, you may well be right, food for thought.
    I am positive this photo is not for real, the facial structure and ears are out of perspective, I believe Maddies face has been added on another, and manipulated...very badly.
    I do not understand the mentality of parents who allow this type of photo to be circulated publicly, especially under the circumstances.
    I have worked with paedophiles and I do not defend their behaviour, but some parents must look at how they allow their young daughters to parade around provocatively, they are after all young children in need of care and protection. I have seen these young Barbie look a likes in the american childrens beauty contests, and they are so old for their age, it makes me sad. Let children enjoy the innocence of childhood while they can, dont make them adults before their time.Protect and care for them, for this is our duty.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I think the uncle took this photo, or manipulated this photo.
    I do not understand why they feel the need to drip feed photos that do not resemble her now..especially photos like this painted doll image. You have subjected your daughter to furtherabuse through the release of this photos. For doctors you are not very intelligent..shame on you.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Why do they have to fiddle with Madeleine's photos?.. Take a look at he video and pause at 1.04 (the ice-cream picture) Now compare it with this one:
    http://mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/Maddieicecreampic.jpg&target=tlx_pictze4

    Maddie's ears are bigger in the video, and they don't look real.. There's something waxy about them.. they are even a different colour.. In the original picture her ears are more rounded and they look normal. Why do they do things like that? What is the significance??!..

    ReplyDelete
  40. This photo is beyond sick, under the circonstances.
    The child is dead and they are selling her as a Lolita.
    That group of people is more than sick.
    They are not normal.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yet another picturehat looks nothing like Madeleine. What's going on here?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I don't have to do a big mental exercise to find disturbing evidences on this campaign.
    From what is reported in the news when journalists expose cases of paedophilia and the use and abuse of childs pictures by paedos, I don't see a big difference between this pictures and the one's from what journalists and police talk about in the net. And this pictures were released by parents who want the world to believe that the child is at paedos hands ( with no harm, we should not forgot). More disturbing if we consider the timing to release the images- THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE CHILDS DISAPEARENCE AND THE MOTHERS DAY IN PORTUGAL.

    There is no difference between this picture of Madeleine and the one which raise doubts in the FBI and made them investigate Cailee mother deeper. The FBI find Cailee 'lolita' pictures in her mum computer. She was dressed up in white like a Beauty Queen ready for 'Playboy'.
    THIS DISGUSTING PARENTS CANNOT SURPRISE ME MORE.

    And the Portuguese PGR still acting with blindness, like if he was part of another planet.
    That campaign, the report from RTP 'Linha da Frente' and the answers Mccann's gave to Sandra Felgueiras interview, deserve a country discussion in TVS with experts to find WHAT IS BEHIND and to start setting up the PUZZLE.
    Sandra Felgueiras had the courage to made interesting questions and they gave very important answers to be compared with what they gave to the police and was recorded in the files. For me, they incriminated themselves at RTP interview and The PGR cannot act like if nothing happen. HE CANNOT BE CONTROLLED BY LAWYERS OFFICE. What is becoming clear now, if he don't act, is the control of the Ministery Public not only by the government but also by some lawyers office (ID, RA and PA). Disgusting and disturbing.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Kabuki makeup syndrome, some distinguishing marks are low set ears and coloboma.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anon 20,i thought the same thing too.Poor poor Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  45. And they still not showing pictures of Madeleine in PDL during their holidays. Pictures of Madeleine in PDL are very important to activate memories and perhaps, the only one which can raise information and help her.

    There is no new pictures with Maddie in PDL. Only the one in the tennis court and the one near the swimming pool ( both not showing clear that were taken in the Ocean Club).

    I feel always disturbing the lack of pictures during that holidays with a beautiful environment and some sunshine. They don't have pictures, their friends don't have pictures and the hundred of Tourists called by them and the police to provide some pictures from the days in the Algarve, also don't have pictures. She was damped all days in the creche and this speaks volumes.
    Madeleine, a disposable product to be used QB according to the agenda. Neglected when she was alive because did not fit their agenda, and explored as a precious diamond after being missing to suit the Fund agenda and their absolute need of cash, to support lawyers and detectives fees.

    AND PORTUGUESE JUSTICE BLESSING THEM WHEN THEY MOKE THE COUNTRY AND THE PEOPLE FROM PDL, WHO LOST THEIR JOBS AND HAVE BEEN HUNTED TO AVOID TURBULENCE ON THEIR 'AGENDAS'.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The video is not about Madeleine, is about themselves. And clear we can see how a 2 Millions of pounds become very important to buy a luxury house.
    What was disturbing for me, is the position Madeleine was filmed and the sky view of the forest surrounding PDL. Why the forest? Could be a kind of virtual memorial with a sky view of the place where she is.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Is DIDO aware about the way her song was used or is she another victim like Brian Adams? I hope she came to Internet to see the feeling of people who watch the campaign. A very disturbing campaign and very useless for Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Hello Gerry & Kate,
    Are you aware that with that campaign you are serving your daughter as an appetizer to any paedophile may have her?
    Why you insist with campaigns that can put her life at risk? Is this because you know there is no risk for her to be harmed?

    I don't know which campaign is more dangerous for her, If this one with a 'Maddie lolita' or the first picture you release to the press showing the eye defect. YOU STILL SHOWING BAD PARENTING SKILLS, no matter if you scream that you leave no stone unturned until you find your daughter. If pictures and videos like that were the stones that you want to leave unturned, see the adviser of good parents and leave this stones completely turned of. THEY ARE DISGUSTING.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I don't know how the British candidates for next elections can look at that campaign with apathy and not feeling disturbed. Why they don't feel sorry for the way two parents used the tragedy of their girl?

    They are fathers and they want the votes of British citizens. They pretend to drive the country destiny. With this example, no any of them deserve any vote from responsible parents. They lost the authority to ask parents to look after their childs, and they lost power to punish the perverts.

    ReplyDelete
  50. 13,

    Mitchell is a Mercenary. He smells the easy money. The question is why Conservatives hire him after he being involved with parents of a child which disappearance is mystery and was not solved?
    Remember, for Portugal authorities and for British police, Mccann's remain the main suspects and if the case was reopened today, this was their legal status. Not convicted but suspects.

    I believe, if Amaral gave an Excellent package of Euros to Mitchell, he quick runaway to Portugal, leaving Cameron and the Mccann's behind. He will sale Amaral book translated in english on the black market and drop Mccann's abduction to save his skin and cash in. He is a Chameleon with several skin colors and a metamorphic 'chip' to adapt himself into the more profitable financial issue.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Justice for MBM in 2010!

    If this is a genuine picture of MBM then it should have remained a private family picture. It imo is wrong on so many levels to place this picture out in the world wide public domain especially given that this child is missing, her parents claim abducted. They claim abducted by paedophiles! How on earth can releasing that picture into the public domain help in the search for MBM? Imo it will cause a hindrance in the search for their missing child. It creates another WTF situation within the world wide public domain! If I were part of GA's legal team I would be using this as evidence that the McCanns themselves create a hindrance in the search for their missing child they claim has been abducted by paedophiles. They claim their child has been abducted yet have no evidence to support their claims! Imo they damage the search for their missing child! Imo by issuing this picture into the world wide public domain places their other daughter at risk! What if the abductor (what abductor) found the picture enticing? And as MBMs sister is not much older decides or has thoughts to abduct her! The McCanns have been in "straight from the horse's mouth" bizarre interviews these past few days. Interviews where they have talked about having thoughts such as, as a family being wiped out on the motorway, wishing it was all over! What parent would think about their children being wiped out in a motorway crash? Is that really what sane parents think about for their children? Their last living moments being involved in motorway impact! There is no guarantee that those children would not suffer even for a few seconds if they were wiped out on the motorway. As Drs the McCanns would know this! Then again as Drs they should have known leaving young children unsupervised leaves them open to all sorts of danger let alone abduction! If words such as the McCanns have been using these past few days were used by patients in mental health care would these patients be discharged from hospital? Would these patients if they were parents have their children in their charge? I hope Leicester Social Services are doing their jobs correctly. SS have no excuse if anything happens to those twins as the McCanns themselves have been making bizarre statements in the press! Surely alarm bells should be ringing somewhere!

    zodiaczephyr

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous. 6
    "I suppose Dido knows the Mccanns are using her lovely song for this despicable video"

    If not, then there are clear issues of copyright, and probably of performing rights as well. Carter-Ruck could advise on the former.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Child abuse runs through this case from the start
    Now they are issuing pictures of her dressed as a tart
    These are no photos of an innocent three year old at play
    An adult applied the makeup in this way

    Neither are these snaps taken by a loving mum or dad
    But a stranger and that really is sad
    Yvonne Martin and Gaspers mention child abuse and were concerned
    But this info was definitely left unturned

    It would appear paedos are rife in our land
    Why no action is taken is difficult to understand
    But when to Gamble and CEOPS Madeleine is their icon
    It just goes to show things are badly wrong

    Just look at the Holly Greig case to know how high in society the paedos go
    But many injunctions are being served, the public will not be allowed to know

    ReplyDelete
  54. just had a thought,jim gamble slated facebook for not putting thier panic button on its webpage,but we have no comment from him about this pic of madeleine,does he know something we dont know, ie madeleine is dead

    ReplyDelete
  55. Evidence destroyed, a scapegoat, and someones 'remains' will be found. They'll live long and happy. End story.
    Remember Isabel Duarte and the shocking pictures.

    ReplyDelete
  56. IMO these two need sectioning under the mental health act for the safety of the two children they have left, when they speak about a wipe out on the motorway.

    Could something like that be arranged by the perverts in the back ground to shut the McCanns up? Dr Kelly, President Kennedy and Princess Diana spring to mind.

    When the Lisbon Treaty is fully implemented it could get worse. Secret meetings and injunctions behind closed doors with no right to a jury trial will be the norm.

    An Englishman

    ReplyDelete
  57. I can not believe what I see. Which parents who have lost a child, not knowing what has happened to her and if she is possibly suffering in the hands of a pedophile would act like that?
    Little Maddie what has happened to you?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Did anyone hear their BBC World Service interview yesterday? It's available on-line as a transcript I believe.

    ReplyDelete
  59. The McCanns are being blackmailed.

    ReplyDelete
  60. where are the liecester (correct spelling)to let this vile pair get away with this,it is so disgusting after the mccanns say that madeleine was taken by a peado but no proof that she has come to harm.
    trust the police,no bloody way and as for jim gamble i would'nt trust him as far as i could throw him.
    sorry for the rant but i am soooo angry that they could do this to madeleine.S.S. YOU NEED TO KEEP AN EYE ON THE TWINS FOR THIER OWN SAFTY

    ReplyDelete
  61. I just get the feeling a scapegoat is on the way as a result of their new leads.
    Louise

    ReplyDelete
  62. The latest picture shows that the McCanns will do anything to keep in the limelight and again use of an old photo compared to what age she would be now shows its pure exploitation of their child. I would love to know what she is on about when she says about certain people trying to derail their search..... and about people would be embarrassed if she was found. Hmmmm bluff or what. The most non co-operative suspects in the wake of their own child's disappearance are now full of wisdom and sanctimony. The irony is killing me. Tacky and crude.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Anon 59 - Agreed, and I think equally they`ve got info on others as well. I reckon they`re in a real catch 22 situation.

    ReplyDelete
  64. @59,sorry dont believe that at all,if it as you say why the fund ,why all the interviews,no you would in the depts of dispare not laughing knowing that you cant say anything because you are being blackmailed.they know exactly what has happend to madeleine as do the tapas 7 and its them and them alone who have done it.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Am I confused or the Creepy man from Gail Cooper is the guy which was dragged into the story by his British girlfriend after they break-up, and Pj dismiss him long time ago after a properly investigation? If this is the case, I cannot stop laughing with that British papers who pay Gail Cooper flight back to Algarve.
    If they got mocked by a old Granny, imagine when there is a team of lawyers and Media experts behind, like what happen with Mccann's.
    The SUN, the Daily Mail and Sky News, will end up as the Mockeries of the century in the Rubbish media gallery. Their appetizer for scandals and easy money, drop them on that situation. Now they have to go until the end of the line, Where a deep hedge is waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  66. you dont think it possible that they,ve released these photos before someone else did ????don,t forget even on the night maddie "dissappeared" her daddy already had post card size photos of her ,in duplicate,to hand out to the media,who they had managed to contact themselves indecently quickly,imo,for what would have been the most devastating time for "normal" parents!!!!!who were those photos for?They should be so ashamed of themselves for what they are doing ,but I doubt that very much.When will they release similar photos of the twins ? please don,t say ,oh ,they wouldn,t sink that low !!!oh yes they would ,if the price is right!Yes your right ,I am so angry at the audacity of this pair ,aided and supported by our ,so called British media .

    ReplyDelete
  67. All UK councils run free compulsory safeguarding courses for professionals working with vulnerable children. Why do they bother when this abhorrence is allowed to continue? Why do our media publish whatever comes out of the McCann machine without even a thought of the consequences to others? Poor, poor Madeleine. I don't know to what extent this image is "doctored" (no pun intended)but the image says to me "I know I am powerful when I am made to look grown up". I cannot believe this is an image of a child at play. My own daughter when age 3, dressed up EVERY day wanting to look grown up and her attempts were funny simply because her perception was so wide off the mark. The image of Madeleine suggests sexual knowledge in terms of power games and it is truly sick.

    How can the McCanns be so hypocritical to release this image while blurring the faces of the twins?

    Was Justice Hogg approached to vet these images before their release? She should have been if she really has parental responsibility for Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Has Dido watched & approved this video? Is she aware that 'Here with me' is being used to promote inapproprate images of a missing 3 year old child? Images which are are deeply questionable given that her parents claimed, on numerous occasions, that Maddie was snatched by paedphiles? Where is CEOP - why have they not commented.

    ReplyDelete
  69. What on earth is the point in releasing a picture of Madeleine that's three years old - particularly a picture of this nature which will only fuel rumours of paedophilia?

    I've followed this case long enough to know that with this pair there is always an ulterior motive to their seemingly innocent press releases. What are they anticipating? What's going on behind the scenes? Could it be that these pictures, or pictures of a smilar nature, were about to be made public and this is a damage limitation PR stunt? What

    ReplyDelete
  70. Maybe in their minds, by releasing these photos they can somehow plant in our minds, that paedophiles did after all did take Madeleine. It is just the sort of thing that they would think is 'clever', however I cannot understand how the rest of their family would allow them to use Madeleine in this way. With the exception of SR. Amaral, Madeleine has once again been abandoned by everyone who knew her.

    ReplyDelete
  71. They just do not care how far they go when it comes to defending themselves with the assistance of Jon Corner and his bizarre collection of Maddie pics.

    The background to this pic does not suggest it was taken at Rothley as Maddie was supposedly enjoying herself, dressing up. Maybe an eyes down picture that Corner seems to like was selected to daub blue eye shadow onto? If you were catching a pic of a little child playing dressing up, would you just zoom the picture right in to nothing but her face? That is what this picture is all about, look, see, she does it herself, nothing to do with us!

    I believe it it to counter the reality that a lot of people, myself included have been seriously questioning the images we have been given of Madeleine, provocative poses, ever varying hair colour, roots growing out, looking afraid, etc. This one is just to say don't be silly the little girl plays doing this. I do not believe she did, for one minute, no child could put on expertly applied eye liner, mascara or so expertly colour and highlight her hair.

    But Corner still leaves the clearly sexual connotations in this video, they run through it from start to finish, commence Maddie sucking on a lolly, finish with a shot of Kate and Gerry's bum, it is just pure sickness. They walk away, without a child in sight, now that is more to the point.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Inlight of the Gaspars statements this photo maybe gerry's way of sticking two fingers up at the likes of us nutters on the net!.
    Very wierd people indeed, totally illogical at times.

    ReplyDelete
  73. "Yes suckers, we did groom Madeleine for paedophilia.
    And what are you going to do about it? Give us some more money? he he he!"

    Gold help me, is this what the McCanns are saying with this photo?

    ReplyDelete
  74. Tony Bennett of The Madeleine Foundation has written an open letter to Clarence Mitchell voicing his disgust at this photo being used in their latest video. He doesn't give up on Madeleine - unlike the parents!

    ReplyDelete
  75. The images of Madeleine in this video,posing in these photographs are really quite disturbing,the McCanns must have hundreds of photographs of Madeleine,so why use those three particulr ones?,i do hope Mark-WilliamsThomas starts to open his mind up about the McCanns actions over the last three years,and starts to question the motives of the McCanns in putting these photographs over the internet,it may take just one person who believed the McCanns explicitly to maybe thinking the unthinkable.There might just be justice coming for Madeleine after all.

    ReplyDelete
  76. That distressing photo can now be seen, with a lengthy report, on the BBC website. Curiouser and curiouser.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Anon 28
    I think you may have something. Madeleine is a Ward of Court. Her parents no longer have responsibility for her. Do they not require the consent of the Judge in her case to issue pederast photos of this nature, or in deed of any nature at all.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Who took the photo? When, and where ?
    Who photoshopped it?
    If you don't want to think dreadful thoughts please don't read the next question ... I apologise for it, but the McCanns have put this in the public domain.

    From what position did the photographer take the photo ? Where was he in relation to Madeleine ?
    Do the parents know ? Does Mrs Justice Hogg know ?

    ReplyDelete
  79. What I do not understand is how the McCanns can just publish these images of Maddie whenever they feel like it (ie whenever the fund is running dangerously low) when she is a ward of court, and they have therefore abrogated parental responsibility for her. Surely they would have to get permission from the court to do this, and surely no court would authorise the publication of such images as the three in this video. None of this makes any sense at all.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Beggars belief people are still contributing to the fund.

    ReplyDelete
  81. #43
    I think you have struck onto something there. I went onto wikipedia for kabuki syndrome and there is a photo of typical features and it was as if i was looking at madeleine (the bottom photo on wiki, not the top photo). There are several photos of Madeleine where the kabuki features stand out, for instance in the portrait photo (Kate, Gerry both holding a twin with Madeleine to one side) which always made me think that something was 'wrong' with Madeleine. When you think about it there are limited numbers of different photos of Madeleine around. They have to find photos where she looks close to 'normal'. Always her nose is stubby, which is a typical kabuki feature. The hanging open of the mouth.

    I read somewhere that someone in the Baptista supermarket commented that she was not such an attractive child as is made out with released photos. I read that Payne said somewhere, 'i knew something was going to happen, but i did not expect this' or words to that effect. What did he mean?

    Also - why not release a child's medical records? Unless there IS something wrong with the child.

    In my opinion this child had some genetic defect. If this were known, then genes could be used to positively identify her in the body fluid samples.

    This perfect family would have rejected a child that is not perfect. It gets more and more puzzling.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Is it just me or does she look dead in this picture? There is no life in the eyes (?whose reflection) and a distinct blue tinge around the mouth and neck.

    ReplyDelete
  83. I am absolutely disgusted and bemused at the behaviour of Maddie's parents. Everything about them confuses me, how could they spend even a minute of their holiday away from their children, leaving them with carers. Eating separately, wearing earings the day after she had gone missing, straining to show emotion and now putting out these vile photos. They need investigating, they do not deserve children, children should be cherished, and protected. god knows how they are looking after their other two children either whilst blasting around the planet supposedly looking for maddie. She never has a hair out of place, she has all of her priorities wrong. the shocking way in which they treated maddie is probably mild compared to the truth of what they have done. They disgust me!

    ReplyDelete
  84. It's wrong to call this a 'Lolita' picture. It's an innocent childhood picture and those who think otherwise have very sick minds.

    ReplyDelete
  85. I am surprised that what should be a responsible press, would print these photos. They smack of an amateur "glamour" photographer that had the hots for the model. I believe the eyeshadow photo was taken with Madeliene laying down but then super imposed or stuck over another poised face, to get the expression of Lolita, here we must look within the family....So sad this has been put on public release for all perverts out there to use as they wish. Shame on you Gerry & Kate

    ReplyDelete
  86. With those parents things never are like they seem to be. Maybe they want to push the Paedo-line by all means to divert from what really happened. Like the father said himself in this speech about moments of madness...

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anonymous 85
    "I believe the eyeshadow photo was taken with Madeliene lying down'
    Even more disturbingly, I think if you look at the hair you see that Madeleine was upright, and therefore that the photographer was lying down, possibly with Madeleine sitting astride him.
    Very disturbing thought Gerry and Kate, don't you agree ?
    Ditto to Mr Gamble. Don't you agree ?

    ReplyDelete
  88. Anonymous 80

    I agree, it does beggar belief people are still contributing to the fund.. It also beggars belief why the SUN newspaper and the Ruper Murdoch empire, only report one side of the mysery disappearance of a British child left home alone.

    Could sick perverts who enjoy molesting children, and vulnerable adults like Hollie Greig a Down's syndrome woman, be the main readers of the Sun?.

    The mystery to me is why parents of a missing child and their holiday friends did not co-operate 100% with the investigation when Snr Goncalo Amaral was in charge.

    Was Goncalo Amaral too close for comfort?.

    An Englishman

    ReplyDelete
  89. That poor, dear little girl. Perhaps the picture was taken in the Algarve ? See the full picture on the Video with the background wall reminding me of the texture and colour of the Algarve. And is that a childs sand spade propped against the wall (the blue plastic object?) or perhaps a small paddle - suggesting holiday location?

    I also wonder if this is Maddie in death?

    ReplyDelete
  90. Hardly can wait some journalist asking about that new photo from McCanns. They made it quite easy for someone now ask them more difficult questions than they have use to answer.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Anon 84, I'm a parent and these photos made me feel uncomfortable. I don't believe I have a sick mind.

    ReplyDelete
  92. http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site872/mainpageS872P0.html

    Coloboma, the good marketing ploy.

    Paedophilia, the good red herring.

    The perfect pair and the close to the perfect child.

    ReplyDelete
  93. @anonymous 84

    It's blinkered and ignorant opinions like yours that enable and perpetuate the abuse of children. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

    Even now, the McCanns use and abuse Maddie and you're seemingly oblivious to it. The picture isn't one of a 3 year old having fun playing dress-up.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Anon 42 & 81 - I had not heard of Kabuki syndrome but have always thought she was a Turner`s syndrome child which has similar abnormalities. I notice she has different shaped ears which can happen with Turner`s, also they can suffer from awful colic as babes, can have coloboma, dark markings on the skin, heart defects. If she did have such a genetic disorder she would be under the care of an endocrinologist (Matthew Oldfield)and probably also a cardiologist (David Payne). When doing my genetics module at Uni years ago, we studied Turner`s syndrome and someone asked if it could explain the virgin birth and Jesus actually being a woman and the lecturer said yes. This is because they are always female and could appear from a clone of the mother. I`ve often wondered if she is/was one of the first cloned children and that`s why the secrecy. Some experts say its impossible to do and others say it is possible but the clone is likely to be defected. It was just a theory and could explain why Kate called her Mini Me.

    ReplyDelete
  95. They are not glamour photos fgs!!! What is wrong with people who see sex where there is none? Do you not realise how badly this reflects on YOU?

    ReplyDelete
  96. Anon @ 84 "Anonymous said... 84 It's wrong to call this a 'Lolita' picture. It's an innocent childhood picture and those who think otherwise have very sick minds."

    No child applied that make up ... it has been applied by an experienced adult hand! Not only is it not smeared all over her face in the normal way of children playing with make up, but how many 3 year olds do you know who can apply eyeliner so precisely?

    Pictures of children playing generally show the whole child, in context, with toys, surrounding area etc... these are fully focused on the face and are in poses which certainly do NOT suggest that the child was innocently playing while someone took snapshots to record childhood games for everyone to smile at years down the line.

    The next logical question is why would any adult BE applying make up like that to a child and then taking pictures of her? When Jordan did something similar she was slated ... and HER daughter wasn't photographed posing like this :S

    If you think that these are indicative of the 'normal' photographs that parents/families have of their female children then I truly despair!

    Molly2

    ReplyDelete
  97. Anon 95.When child exploitation experts are saying these pictures are wrong on so many levels, it is not just the average person who can see this latest promotion by the Mcs is sick. Might I suggest it reflects badly on you, people who fail to recognise when things just aren't right or don't want to see is often why so many children go on being abused.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Look on Dr Martin Roberts website,this isn't the only disturbing image in the video ,there are two others,also Terence Blacker writing in The Independant today has also condemned putting this make-up photo in the public domain.Hopefully this along with MWT's condemnation might just bring about a turning point in this case.Justice for Madeleine,and i might add for Goncarlo Amaral.

    ReplyDelete
  99. For me all the pictures of Madeleine's face have photo-shot, even the first showing the coloboma. If we compare with one's where she is more natural, like the one with Everton football Kit, she looks different and not so pretty.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Even if they are so naive not to realise how this picture could be interpreted as a glamour photo, surely someone advised them against putting it on the www. Just because people are aware how that could be interpreted as a glamour photo, does not mean they have sick minds - it just means they are not naive. Its the same reason that aware parents don`t allow their kids to venture outside the house wearing heels too high for them, skirts too short, ear piercings/jewellery, makeup on. Its ok dressing up indoors but surely anyone knows these days, you don`t expose your children to the outside world like it. My grand daughter (who developed early) nearly stepped out with me showing her cleavage - "ah ah, no way, go and cover yourself up at once girl".

    ReplyDelete
  101. Just wondering the the McCs want everyone to be thinking the paedophile route - just to take attention away from what`s really behind it all. They don`t do anything without it being a cunning plan of some sort. It could be a detraction.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Shuddering watching that video.
    Who on earth has blue eyeshadow anymore?.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Anon 94

    If that was so, then wouldn't Madeleine look just like her mother. Whereas she doesn't appear to. She looks more like Gerry's family.

    As for Jesus really being a woman, please don't bring Him into this. I'm sure a vastly superior intelligence could make sure He really was born as a man.

    And for those who believe 'The Shroud of Turin' is the Shroud of Jesus Christ, it reveals a form which is definitely a man.

    I do think there is something about Madeleine that has not been revealed though.

    It is hard to believe there is no medical history for Madeleine. Just like there must be medical history for Kate and Gerry, but has that ever been seen by the investigators either.

    Were either of them on medication?

    No credit card records and no medical records available to the investigators. Hard to believe.

    Could the rest of us call for that kind of anonymity if we needed it.

    ReplyDelete
  104. The picture on the BBC homepage differs quite a bit from the one shown above, the face is more rounded and childlike, this one is elongated on the top and bottom and thus looks both more adult and more disturbing than the BBC version. The accompanying BBC text claimed it was an age-progressed picture showing Madeleine as she might look as a six year-old, and the tone implied thet they wondered about the function of the eye make-up .Apparently they did not notice that she was three at the time the photo was supposedly taken. This to my mind shows that the BBC journalist unknowingly picked up on the disturbing elements of the photo: he clearly did not even consider this might be a "innocent picture of a three year-old at play".

    ReplyDelete
  105. New (tweaked) Madeleine video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIBlk1cd2XQ

    ReplyDelete
  106. Have just had my attention drawn to a "re-working" of the recent Madeleine video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIBlk1cd2XQ

    ReplyDelete
  107. I think the "blue eyeshadow" is actually a photoshopped blue. the lollipop photo is definitely photoshopped when you compare it with the "original" photo. Her face is made to look thinner and her hair is more in an "up" style, and more of her ears showing. Were they trying to change her into a 6 year old? i.e. to do their own age progression? They really fluffed it. Could we not prepare a letter to send to Justice Hogg and request this to desist? If we all put our heads together twe could create an effective protestation.

    ReplyDelete
  108. I'm interested in how media commentators and members of the public in other countries- particularly Portugal and Spain- see these latest pictures. Are they as outraged as the Brits?

    ShuBob

    ReplyDelete
  109. @1.looks funny to me ,has madeleine got a mishapen ear on the right side of her face in this pic,never noticed that before

    ReplyDelete
  110. Photos shown in that video are not well received in the Southern hemisphere. Perhaps Maddie is alive? These so called parents are oddballs in an evil way though and from the start of this case have acted suspiciously and coldly. Its a wonder the welfare people have not beaten a track to the McCann's house to check on those twins.

    ReplyDelete
  111. This is a disturbing photograph of Madeleine not just because of the content but because the Mccanns have waited three years to release it. We have to ask why the parents released such an obnoxious photograph of a three year old child. This photograph was supposedly taken by a professional photographer weeks before Madeleine disappeared and then withheld for three years, WHY? When I first saw this photograph in the Daily Mail I wondered how any parent could allow such a photograph of their child to be circulated. This is not a child dressing up this photograph is posed and disturbing.
    This entire case is disturbing I found the earlier comments on Kabuki interesting and perhaps this was the case with Madeleine. Dr Amaral has been treated despicably by the Mccanns and I truly believe that once the ban is lifted on his book (as it should – in the name of freedom of speech) and people are allowed to read it they will see the Mccanns for what they are. In the meantime I thank Joana for all her hard work, I log on every day. Also for her beautiful dedication to Madeleine of ‘Agnus Dei - In Memoriam’ through Joana we have a platform and a voice. One day Maddie will have the justice she so deserves. Joana thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  112. In the latest interviews from Spain - they are asked about the use of narcotics to get the kids to sleep.
    Kate McCann replies that Madeleine's doctor was never contacted.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Is it me? or, this photo coupled with Gerry talking about a "special daddy bond" (http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2010/05/04/gerry-mccann-speaks-of-special-bond-with-missing-daughter-madeleine-86908-22232484/)really quite disturbing?

    Why in Gods name are these two still free?

    ReplyDelete
  114. Anon 95,
    Did I touch a raw nerve? Read what I said again, I did not say they were glamour photos, but the shots and compositions are like glamour photos. However they are very provocative, and this is where we as parents have to be careful. They have been altered and logic says not an ideal range of photos to use for publicity.
    Anon 87
    I had a further look and I think you are right, it was a birds eye photo, you can also see what look like a shelf support behind. This is not a happy photo, her expression says a lot. Amatuer glamour/ photographers like to creep into all sorts of angles to get the look...sultry, moody...................

    ReplyDelete
  115. This is not a child at play, she would be laughing and draping things over her, and her brother and sister, thats a fun dress up, not well put on eyeshadow and the sultry look. so who is the photographer we must ask...

    ReplyDelete
  116. No 95 I disagree with you. No one can say they "are" sex photos, what I am certain of is that they "look like" sex photos, therefore why release them?

    And no it does not look bad on me, or anyone who thinks that way. Internet paedophilia is a massive problem and it is a joke that CEOP are not blazing mad at this photo and the video.

    ReplyDelete
  117. @ post #111, I found that particular comment by Gerry disturbing in a Josef Fritzl type of way. I will leave it at that.

    ShuBob

    ReplyDelete
  118. If a picture could paint a thousand words...

    ReplyDelete
  119. #96 - couldn't have put it better myself.

    This is no "coco-the-clown" photograph - simply, this is just not right.

    CEOP - press your panic buttom now!

    ReplyDelete
  120. I see this, as just a little girl precociously wanting some of mummy's make up on, & then trying to hold her mouth to show off her lipstick. Sort of swanking! I think she was wearing that blue dressing up outfit she had, a bit like a Snow White dress.
    I personally wouldn't have chosen this photograph to be seen by the world, but perhaps it was just one they had of Madeleine looking grown up.
    I am a fence sitter, but am allowed my opinion. As a mum, & a grandma, I just can't understnad a lot of what the McCanns have done, especially leaving the children in the first place. I have never left any of ours, & would never do so. That was so wrong & so irresponsible. It seems it's usually the clever ones that don't seem to have a brain! But in my heart I cannot understand that they would go through all this cover up. Yet I am intelligent enough to know that every single thing points to them.
    I just wish this case would be solved & soon. Her birthday is the same day as mine & I always think of her & feel so sad. Her life had only just begun.

    ReplyDelete
  121. 111 you are right, I'm a father of two daughters and I know when something sounds genuine 'fatherly' or not - this sounds damned creepy!

    Regardless of whether he is actually a deviant, he certainly is trying to be something he isnt - a genuine proud and devastated father.

    The original 'proud father' moment has already been proven to be invention (Kate said the door had been moved since 'they' had last seen it - clearly this was she and Gerry - in short, he had not been back to the apartment in between).

    Having said that, I think the whole nights events are fabrication.

    Why would Kate have been closing the door when she felt the gust of wind pushing against it....why hadnt she looked in at the children before closing the door - if she had, she'd have known Madeleine wasnt there and wouldnt have been closing the door.

    Lies lies and more lies.

    ReplyDelete
  122. The Madeleine Foundation have written to Mr Gamble voicing their concerns over this photo. Let's see what his reply is, that's if he has the good manners to reply.

    ReplyDelete
  123. All this might be to distract us from the resounding silence about the Halligen case and the missing £££££s.
    However, I have always been upset by the bags under Madeleine's eyes, as if she often cried, or cried herself to sleep.
    Remember Gerry's great anger outside the courtroom, when Sandra Felguieras asked a couple of awkward questions. Watching that with the sound off, he all-but goes to hit her. Think how a man like that would be like at home, with a little three-year old and no TV cameras.
    The permed hair on a three-year old is vulgar and foists a false adult age onto her. Strange parental choice.

    ReplyDelete
  124. The time has come to insist the medical records of Maddie are available to the police.I believe she suffers from Kabuki Syndrome. I read somewhere that the McCanns said they are the families doctor, but they are not paedatricians. Look at some of the videos of Maddie in front of the camera, the facial expression and the open mouth without speech, speech delay and open mouthing are a sign of KS. Also large cupped ears,big eyes, long eyelashes and problems with the end part of the eyelid. Sleep and behavioural problems and in 86% of case they do not grow at the normal rate.
    I readon Ironsides blog Texturat, that McCanns refer to it as a fleck, and that she would be wearing contact lenses, contact lenses ar usually cosmetic unless the eye has problems...does it Gerry?? Should she be having those 6 monthly checks, why have you not appealed to her abductor to take her for regular checks. Maybe Maddie suffered from these things, and that was part of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  125. Maybe were getting a bit carried away with ourselves and the photos.
    Is it not possible that Madeleine took the eyeshadow photo of herself? it looks that way to me and perhaps coincidental that her image is central in the shot? I think the makeup coul;d also have been self applied as it looks all over the place.
    Are there any photographic experts on these blogs who can give an expert opinion.
    Is a near 4 year old child capable of such feats?

    I also think the other photos are innocent enough.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Anon 111, Mr McC said that he got to sit with her as she enjoyed a treat, a glass of milk with some biscuits. He got to sit with her? Shouldn't it be: I would sit with her?

    ReplyDelete
  127. The black and white family photo with Madeleine sitting apart from the others and certain other photos - if I remember the one of her face, leaning back - were in the portfolio of a photographer whose work has appeared in the Telegraph and elsewhere. Whether or not the "blue eye shadow" photo is one of his I do not know. He may have a professional connection to Jon Corner. The "Lolita" photo gives Madeleine, a 3 year old, adult qualities. Not sure about the position she was in or the photographer's position with relation to her but it doesn't have a sense of innocence as the aim of the picture.

    That's my opinion for what it's worth - I haven't got a clue what really happened to Madeleine McCann but if you put the Gaspar statement alongside this and other dubious photos it does rather ring alarm bells. In any other reported case the police and Social Services would have been over certain persons like a rash.

    ReplyDelete
  128. #122 You read my thoughts.

    About the photo(s): Imo Jon Corner is TAFKAG (The Artist Formerly Known as Godfather). Very bad taste, like will to like.

    M.NL

    ReplyDelete
  129. I put eye make up on every day and no 4 year old does it this well! Look at the photo when she was about 2, with eye liner carefully applied and lipstick. Ugh.

    ReplyDelete
  130. 121 The whoosh-clunking of Kevin Halligen is very telling. He knows what happened from the very beginning of that "holiday." To know the story, go back to the earliest reports. The McCanns were never where they say they were.

    ReplyDelete
  131. A forensic astologist saw disturbing things - special bond with daddy, jealous mother, all put down for public to see and nothing has been said about this by the Mcs. Madeleine always to me looked a sad child, with sad eyes too.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Anon 82!
    I agree with you. The face looks dead. The first feeling when I saw the picture.
    And then photoshoped. But why?! What for? There supposed to be lots of other pictures of the little girl. Why this strange ones?
    What a hell are this parents doing to their own kids!? Is there anyone to stop them at last?!
    What a power they have! To choose the investigator for their own case, to choose to answer the questions or not, to participate in reconstruction or not... . WHO AND WHAT IS COVERING? AND WHY?!

    ReplyDelete
  133. I am poster 128. Although almost every post is very well, I meant poster #124 (medical records, Kabuki syndrome) who read my thoughts.
    Why all this mysteriousness about Madeleine's health?

    ReplyDelete
  134. Halligen will be dealt with under an alias and the press will be prevented from reporting " in the interests of national security". The prison holding him will make sure no-one gets near him.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Anon 122

    Gamble should take his head out of the sand regarding this case.

    He is too close to the McCanns to be any bloody use at all in finding the truth of how Madeleine died.

    That's why he is delaring them innocent and Madeleine abducted, when the official investigators, and the best sniffer dogs in the world, who worked the case, say Madeleine is dead.

    Not abducted Mr Gamble, DEAD.

    He should not even be involved in this case at all. So why is he hanging around, and promoting the McCanns?

    ReplyDelete
  136. At the start of all of this, the needs of the parents has taken priority, to the detriment of their missing child.

    Three years after a British child mysteriously vanished. The perverse action of the missing childs parents and their backers, will be difficult but not impossible to correct.

    How do you do it? With a jury trial under oath

    An Englishman

    ReplyDelete
  137. She looks tragic. There is sadness in her eyes.

    --Trismegistus

    ReplyDelete
  138. A jury trial? Don't make me laugh. It isn't going to happen, I'm not sure when many people are really going to accept that and get on with their lives. It's sick, in my estimation, to call this a 'lolita' photograph. I don't care if I get ip banned for saying so - it's a disgusting slur on an innocent child, which does not reflect well on those on this site who claim to be her voice.
    It's a photo of a kid being a kid, fgs!!

    ReplyDelete
  139. Perhaps anon @ 136 hit on a raw nerve mentioning trial by jury hence the rather vocal outburst of anon @ 138, it is a 'photo of a kid being a kid' anon @ 138 but we would like to know where this 'kid' is and why her parents feel it is necessary to lie in every interview and build a financial fund to pay for their mortgage and lawyers, and as this child has been missing for three years why did they need to release such a 'lolitta' photograph at this stage. Trial by jury everybody under oath - that would sort this lot out.

    ReplyDelete
  140. 138

    Hold on a moment. Regardless of the original context, this photograph could have been released years ago, so why wasnt it? why release pictures that were of a child much younger?

    Something tasteless, at the very least, about releasing this photograph now - and suspicious about not releasing it before - and no excuses about 'we were told not to release it as it would encourage the 'kidnappers' - as what has changed?!

    ReplyDelete
  141. Let's for one moment forget the 'Lolita' name.
    Normal parents wouldn't show this picture anyway, but even 'bad taste parents' would only give permission to show this picture to the world if they know the child is dead and doesn't come to any harm.

    ReplyDelete
  142. It's a still pulled from a video.
    That's all. Get a grip.

    ReplyDelete
  143. I'm always slightly off topic (apparently!)

    This post I made was removed from the BBC web site...

    Subject:
    Death of British journalist in Afghanistan

    Posting:
    It is a terrible tragedy when anyone dies, especially when 'just doing their job'.

    However, it is not just one journalist who has died, but in the UK the very art of journalism has died...there is currently a court case underway in Portugal which has failed to atract any real investigative journalist - in fact this case has been ignored for several years now, but remains largely ignored by the UK media - except in a blatent biased form which ignores the most incredible injustice - the neglect and loss of a small child.

    ReplyDelete
  144. Do the parents believe their daughter is held by a paedophile? If so,the release of this lolita-image, is probably not helping their daughter in her current situation. They must have thought about that. How it affects her life.
    /cc

    ReplyDelete
  145. The video is so strange. It begins with "Kate returns to find Madeleine has been taken," not abducted as they always say, but taken. She was taken away by someone, probably Gerry.

    Next, the the sign saying Luz and images of the scrubland around the area. The word "information" appears on the screen and http and www. Information on the internet? Pictures of 3 year old Madeleine,(who never had the chance to grow older). The word "information" appears again. Does this mean they are giving the public information about where to find the body (the scrubland) or asking for information.

    What is with the McCann butt shots?

    Dido's beautiful song is an interesting choice. Resting here with me. (Resting in peace?)

    I have thought for a long time now that the McCanns want Madeleine's body to be found so they can finally lay her to rest. They must believe that they will never be connected to her death, that some stranger will be blamed, and now they just want her body laid to rest.

    Remember the story about Kate reporting a dream? They believed the body would be found sooner.

    This video is full of subliminals.

    ReplyDelete
  146. When my daughter was approximately 3yrs old she raided my make-up bag and put on my make-up. To my total horror she looked like the bride of chucky, hidious, yet funny. However look at MM some adult has applied that crap, resulting in that child lookig like a lolita, disgusting.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Yes! And despite the wisdom of Penny Arcade on the subject, the result of Ebert's ignorant proclamations has been a development of aesthetic conversation about medium.

    ReplyDelete
  148. ''The picture is an obvious and not very good photoshop type job.
    Why would they do this?''

    Let's not get carried away. Exaggeration may be useful to get people interested in the role of the McCanns, but sifting out the truth requires a little more restraint. So, well, actually no. I can't see any convincing evidence of photoshopping.

    ~ The 'cat's eye' pupil is there if you magnify it.
    ~ The smoothness of the skin and the apparently short and blurred eyelashes can be accounted for by camera over-exposure, something a digital camera would do on automatic when her face is shot on a dark background.
    ~ Skin 'marks' are consistant with light hitting the face at an angle.
    ~ Shadow pixels on the face do match pixels outside the face.
    ~ The appearence of fair eyebrows will vary wildly from photo to photo, depending on the lighting.

    What's more, the colour of her blue eye-shadow is reflected on the upper curve of her cheeks. That is extremely difficult to do electronically and not many people will notice anyway, so, likely the eye-shadow was really there.

    But:

    The ears are low which indicates the head is really tilted, yet the forehead does not appear smaller, as you would expect. In fact, the photo's been cropped at the top of the head - perhaps hiding elongation. This photo may have been elongated to make the face look more adult, but it's difficult to tell.

    Three-year-olds may play with make up. This does look a little careful - even though the blue eye-shadow had been put on reasonably roughly - perhaps with fingers. Even if adults did put it on, that's not necessarily an indication of anything more sinister than crass poor taste. Tom Cruise's 3-year old is not the only one to wear high heels and make-up for little children is for sale in Boots.

    I was more struck by how one would keep a 3-year old child still long enough to take such a shot. Still, it is possible if you distract them. If she looks serious, well, children do when they concentrate.

    No, more important is this:

    Gerry McCann on the twins ''When they become aware of this I think they will want to know where we were. And we will have to explain to them that we were having dinner in the restaurant next door.’'

    'Next door'? What happens when their kids can get a map out?

    Kate McCann on the investigation:''So why is there no active investigation? I’m angry and frustrated really, this is our daughter, she’s still missing and there’s no investigation to find her. It’s a farce''.

    She refused to answer questions about how the flat looked or what she did.

    D.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Personally, I don't think that is a bow in her hair. It looks more like fingertips, maybe holding her head up? This picture does not seem to be of a living child. I agree with posters that say there is no life in her eyes. That blueness on her cheek is not the same blue that is above her eyes. If you load the picture into a photo editor and increase the saturation of colors, it is easy to see that the blueness on her cheek does not match what is above her eyes. Maybe the eyeshadow was added to hide bruising or discoloration? Also when playing with the saturation and increasing the sharpness of the picture, there seem to be more blueish marks on the other cheek. I rotated the picture as well, an I wonder if maybe she wasn't laying on her side?

    ReplyDelete
  150. I don't see anything wrong with this image of Madeleine, I have a three year old who regularly gets into my makeup bag. And yes, Blue Eye shadow is not common anymore, which is probably why mothers relegate it to the playing with makeup kit.
    It's not as if the McCanns paraded Madeleine in public with makeup on. It's just a 'dress up' play thing that she's been doing.
    And so what if she's been helped by an adult- maybe it was an older cousin, it's just 'dressing up/
    I think it goes too far to read pedophilia into everything, I would agree if the bulk of Madeleine's photos were like this, but clearly they are not, and I just see it as a little girl playing dress ups.
    I think it must be very sad to see such evil in what is obviously an innocent picture.
    And come on... You can't really believe the McCanns would be dumb enough to use a picture that had 'hidden/photo-shopped signs of abuse They are not that stupid,

    ReplyDelete