Madeleine McCann General Discussion Thread No. 22

[teacherbees]

I'm with SleuthMom on the nickname thing. Like I'm going to trust what Gerry and Kate tell us about Madeleine's name? Those two poor excuses for parents didn't respect their little girl enough to stay home with her, even after knowing she cried for them the night before!

When I write the name Maddie I use it as a term of endearment - in much the same way I say my sweet niece's same nickname.

Maddie isn't here on the boards so no harm, no foul in choosing whatever nickname I think honors the memory of this little girl.

Frankly, listening to the cold way Kate and Gerry have talked and written about her and watching Kate act out shaking the tar out of her scared little girl, I rather think Maddie might be happy to have people calling her any name with the affection and kindness used on this board.

 

[colomom]

Re: the strangeness of the ice cream pic....

I thought it looked...how do I say it...provocative. It reminds me of the sideways glances in Playboy and the like.

That was my first gut reaction. Just saying, don't flame me.

I never thought they were photoshopped. Unlike the "last photo" by the pool.

 

[SleuthMom]

I thought it was photoshopped and that's why I asked my husband, her fingers look funny don't you all think?

 

[iNTERESTEDWOMAN]

Re: the strangeness of the ice cream pic....

I thought it looked...how do I say it...provocative. It reminds me of the sideways glances in Playboy and the like.

That was my first gut reaction. Just saying, don't flame me.

I never thought they were photoshopped. Unlike the "last photo" by the pool.

I agree, that is how I felt about the (likely) topless Swimming pool picture taken by the male potographer Paul Grover...but few (that I'm aware of) agreed with me. Most thought it was just great and perfectly harmless for a little girl to pose topless.... Oh well enough about that, I don't need any flames today either. :chicken:
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w204/iNTERESTEDWOMAN/Maddieinpool.jpg

From:
http://officialmadeleinemccann.piczo.com/?g=45730683&cr=5

 

[Texana]

It doesn't look photoshopped to me, she just looks mischevious. Unfortunately, we're so used to little girls being sexualized in photos and products, even when that's not the intent. (I've got a photo of a niece from Glamor Shots, she was barely twelve, and it looks like something out of Urban Cowboy.)

However, in this photo, the expression does look like one my child would have had at that age, especially if you'd said, "Don't you want to share some ice cream?"

 

[colomom]

It doesn't look photoshopped to me, she just looks mischevious. Unfortunately, we're so used to little girls being sexualized in photos and products, even when that's not the intent. (I've got a photo of a niece from Glamor Shots, she was barely twelve, and it looks like something out of Urban Cowboy.)

However, in this photo, the expression does look like one my child would have had at that age, especially if you'd said, "Don't you want to share some ice cream?"

Excellent point Tex. Trust me, I do not like thinking like that but I can see IW's point of view as well.

It is a strange world we live in and unfortunately, not very safe for young girls. I read a statistic that 1 in 4 teenage girls will be the victim of a sexual assault. That's outrageous!!

 

[Barnaby]

I agree, that is how I felt about the (likely) topless Swimming pool picture taken by the male potographer Paul Grover...but few (that I'm aware of) agreed with me. Most thought it was just great and perfectly harmless for a little girl to pose topless.... Oh well enough about that, I don't need any flames today either. :chicken:
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w204/iNTERESTEDWOMAN/Maddieinpool.jpg

From:
http://officialmadeleinemccann.piczo.com/?g=45730683&cr=5

I haven't seen that pool pic before IW & I certainly agree with your views on it!
Who is Paul Grover?

 

[colomom]

http://www.madeleinesearch.com./index.html

New site

I meant to add....I would not trust a site that starts off by asking for money, would you? Maybe somebody is looking for information (re: searches already done)??

 

[colomom]

I thought it was photoshopped and that's why I asked my husband, her fingers look funny don't you all think?

Now that you mention it....

I posted (replaced it with) a better copy I found. Look at the fingers holding the ice cream cone, they do look misshapen. Also, why is she wearing makeup (eyeliner/lipstick)? If she is not, then the picture has been touched up. Why??

 

[Barnaby]

OMG! I have just had a close look at the pic. Yes the fingers are mishapen but have a look at the arm it is not her arm holding the ice cream cone look at the break, the arm actually ends, it is not attached to anything you can see the pattern of the dress in the gap. Her arm is going down the ways. can anyone else see this?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/Maddie5-17.jpg

 

[colomom]

OMG! I have just had a close look at the pic. Yes the fingers are mishapen but have a look at the arm it is not her arm holding the ice cream cone look at the break, the arm actually ends, it is not attached to anything you can see the pattern of the dress in the gap. Her arm is going down the ways. can anyone else see this?
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y234/colomom/Maddie5-17.jpg

I see it. Now I am completely creeped out. Thanks alot B! :blowkiss:

 

[teacherbees]

Yikes. I see it too, Barnaby. That's downright creepy - I mean what is the point of someone going to all that trouble to photoshop alter a picture like that?

 

[Barnaby]

Sorry Colomom & Teacherbees I got caught up in a movie

In the first pic you posted Colomom, it wasn't visible but in the replacement, very obvious. God it is so weird & creepy! I wonder who would do this & why?

 

[Texana]

I think it's not her expression that seems out of sync, we're all picking up on the proportions which seem wrong.

The space between the fore arm and shoulder is obviously missing and therefore, weird.

The ice cream cone, I think, is too big. It looks to be at least 12 inches long, or more, the end of the cone not being entirely visible. We just went to an ice cream parlor (Ben & Jerry's) tonight, and the cones even with the topping were closer to 8 inches or less.

Look at the size of the cone relative to the front of her dress/torso and see what you think.

Also, she does appear to have had the eyes or lashes darkened. I'll get my resident photo shop expert to look at at. (the one who spends hours using Adobe to retouch and change up celebrity photos just for fun.) But they do appear to be darker her than in other photos.

 

[Texana]

Excellent point Tex. Trust me, I do not like thinking like that but I can see IW's point of view as well.

It is a strange world we live in and unfortunately, not very safe for young girls. I read a statistic that 1 in 4 teenage girls will be the victim of a sexual assault. That's outrageous!!

One thought about the statistics: I've researched them, and it's not necessarily one in four as you might think. It's closer to one in four in certain socio-economic groups. That study had some sampling size issues. Also, if it is self-reported, there's going to be a certain amount of issues with the self-definition of sexual assault--even if the survey questioner spelled it out statistically.

I learned to be more careful about statistics with teens the day my eighth grader came home and said, "We had to do that stupid smoking survey again. We all filled out that we smoked. I said I did a pack a day."

Me: Freaking."Why the @(*U&(@ would you say that!"

Her: "Because if we have a smoking problem, we'll have an assembly on teen smoking, and get out of class."

This, my friends, is how the teenage brain thinks. (or lack of it.) I'm constantly reminded why they can't legally sign contracts at this age.

DD's high school also did a project on date rape, and the numbers (for their high school) were so obviously exaggerated the teens stopped listening. That's the difference between the teen and adult brain; the adult brain thinks, "but it's still so important and could still happen to you!" and the teen brain says, "Stupid adults making up numbers again for whatever reasons, therefore, rest of stuff not worth listening to."

Bottom line, 1 out of 4 definitely for some groups of girls, but not across the board true for all girls. We need to do a better job of targeting those girls that really are at risk and helping them, instead of the buckshot approach that does nothing.

 

[colomom]

One thought about the statistics: I've researched them, and it's not necessarily one in four as you might think. It's closer to one in four in certain socio-economic groups. That study had some sampling size issues. Also, if it is self-reported, there's going to be a certain amount of issues with the self-definition of sexual assault--even if the survey questioner spelled it out statistically.

I learned to be more careful about statistics with teens the day my eighth grader came home and said, "We had to do that stupid smoking survey again. We all filled out that we smoked. I said I did a pack a day."

Me: Freaking."Why the @(*U&(@ would you say that!"

Her: "Because if we have a smoking problem, we'll have an assembly on teen smoking, and get out of class."

This, my friends, is how the teenage brain thinks. (or lack of it.) I'm constantly reminded why they can't legally sign contracts at this age.

DD's high school also did a project on date rape, and the numbers (for their high school) were so obviously exaggerated the teens stopped listening. That's the difference between the teen and adult brain; the adult brain thinks, "but it's still so important and could still happen to you!" and the teen brain says, "Stupid adults making up numbers again for whatever reasons, therefore, rest of stuff not worth listening to."

Bottom line, 1 out of 4 definitely for some groups of girls, but not across the board true for all girls. We need to do a better job of targeting those girls that really are at risk and helping them, instead of the buckshot approach that does nothing.

OMG Tex...you don't know, your post made me cry. I pray that what you say is on the money cuz I know the statisticians can get screwy information thanks to inaccurate input (no shame on your baby, tell her I said "get real girly, life is too short to goof off) but I am comforted to know that my 8 year old does not have to stay in her room until she is 25 years old.

Big hugs and kisses to you and yours, thanks....

 

[april4sky]

McCann libel payout cues media debate

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f533a7a8-f625-11dc-8d3d-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

They admitted that a series of stories in the Daily Express and Daily Star libelled the McCanns and paid the damages, agreed in an out-of-court settlement after the couple sued over 100 different articles in those papers and their Sunday sister titles, into a charitable fund set up to help find the little girl.

Broadcaster Andrew Neil, former editor of The Sunday Times, said: “The Express got its come-uppance But it is only the worst example. The way all the papers turned on the McCanns to extend the story will be to the everlasting shame of British journalism.

Susan Aslan, a media lawyer with Howard Kennedy, said: “I think newspapers will change. I think they will step back and say to themselves: ‘We mustn’t allow ourselves incrementally to be led down the path of printing a story we wouldn’t have written on day one.’”

She added that any future coverage of the case would be far more cautious because further defamation of the McCanns would be subject to aggravated damages.

The Express’s apology, unprecedented for a mid-market paper, admitted that it had repeatedly libelled Kate and Gerry McCann by suggesting “the couple had caused the death of their missing daughter and then covered it up”, and acknow­ledged there was no evidence to support the theory.

papers in both Portugal and Britain have published increasingly lurid articles linking different people to the presumed abduction.

*********
Not a recent publication but shows the dishonesty of the press. And I think confirms their priority is "sales".

 

[Barnaby]

I think it's not her expression that seems out of sync, we're all picking up on the proportions which seem wrong.

The space between the fore arm and shoulder is obviously missing and therefore, weird.

The ice cream cone, I think, is too big. It looks to be at least 12 inches long, or more, the end of the cone not being entirely visible. We just went to an ice cream parlor (Ben & Jerry's) tonight, and the cones even with the topping were closer to 8 inches or less.

Look at the size of the cone relative to the front of her dress/torso and see what you think.

Also, she does appear to have had the eyes or lashes darkened. I'll get my resident photo shop expert to look at at. (the one who spends hours using Adobe to retouch and change up celebrity photos just for fun.) But they do appear to be darker her than in other photos.

It will be great to have an expert opinion on it Texana. You are right the proportions are wrong, makes one wonder why anyone would do such a thing & if it wasn't the McCanns, why not withdraw it from circulation?
I am seriously hoping that some idiot did this for fun, I don't want to think about any lurid reasons why this pic was photoshopped!

& I do agree with your take in your next post about statistics!

 

[april4sky]

Mrs Pamela Fenn Video
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VTrFb-0zLuY

There has been a lot of claims regarding Mrs Fenn and what she has supposedly said.
Here she says she has not spoken to the press, knows nothing, and what the press have written is all rubbish.

 

[colomom]

Mrs Pamela Fenn Video
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VTrFb-0zLuY

There has been a lot of claims regarding Mrs Fenn and what she has supposedly said.
Here she says she has not spoken to the press, knows nothing, and what the press have written is all rubbish.

Pity, that video does indicate when it was filmed. She says that she hasn't spoken to a journalist in the last 3 months.

Here (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/column...witch-hunt-and-find-madeleine-89520-19801006/) we see an article dated 9/17/07 which states: Now the real woman - Pamela Fenn, 81 - says that these claims are "absolute rubbish" and here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...4&in_page_id=1811&in_page_id=1811&expand=true) an article dated 8/19/07 that states: Mrs Fenn said: "I will speak to the police on Monday." and Among them will be ex-pat Pamela Fenn, a widow in her 70s. She claims she "scared off" an intruder who had broken into her apartment in the days before the McCanns arrived to stay in the holiday flat directly below her.

So, which is it?? Did she speak to journalists or not? The Daily Mail seems to be quoting "friends" regarding the break in but, where did they get the quote about her speaking with the police?? These quotes were reportedly given a month before she said she had not spoken to any journalists. It appears that Tony Parsons and the Daily Mail are confused (making things up?).

When in doubt I always check with the McCannFiles site because there is a wealth of information with links. Check here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id66.html and you will find many references to what may (or may not) have been discussed with police or journalists.

Research is a wonderful thing.....