Re: REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL by Dr Martin Roberts

by Guest 30.07.13 19:36

russiandoll wrote:photoshopping or not, I find the following significant regarding this photograph : [ bold mine ]

A child with coloboma will receive specialist care at hospital during the early years to monitor the effect of the coloboma and their eye health. The frequency of these checks will depend on the child's needs. Children who have coloboma can be more at risk of glaucoma (increased eye pressure) and retinal detachment. There are treatments for both of these conditions which the hospital would explore with you.
If your child's eye health is stable and no further complications appear then they will usually attend an eye test every six months up to the age of seven years and then annually. These eye tests will usually take place with an optician or orthoptist.
Children with coloboma may need glasses. Glasses cannot correct the vision problems caused by the coloboma. However, glasses can correct short-sightedness or long-sightedness which can help to correct the parts of vision that haven't been affected by coloboma.
Sometimes cosmetic contact lenses may be considered at a later stage. These can help to make the pupil look round rather than keyhole shaped.
Prescription sunglasses due to the light-sensitivity may also be suggested, as may some low vision aids and equipment to help a child make the most of their sight.

Also, considering the prominence given to this eye defect by the parents, medical records would contain information re Maddie's eye.
It looks much more than a fleck on the cover of Kate's book. It looks like a classic coloboma imo as described on the RNIB web site.

Could it be, that the medical records (witheld) would have shown no coloboma at all, causing the marketing ploy to fall flat on its face, and secondly, to have scuppered a zillion sightings from all over the world, including the only real one: that of Maddie happily running around in her new environment, uncolombomaed, and therefore undetected?

by Guest 30.07.13 19:38

Châtelaine wrote:
Poe wrote:Did anyone investigate when (or even whether) Gap & Monsoon actually stocked Madeleine's outfit?

It fits her very well which makes me think that the outfit is old. If you were buying a child an "extravagant" outfit, or any outfit for that matter, wouldn't you make sure that there is plenty of room for them to grow into it?
***
I checked the following site last year. It's a.o. an archive of GAP clothing 2005 - 2013. I haven't found the top Madeleine is wearing in the "last picture".

http://www.kidsfashionpassion.com/gap-archives/

As if that were at all possible: the Bewk is getting increasingly ridiculous

by Mike 30.07.13 19:50

Portia wrote:
russiandoll wrote:photoshopping or not, I find the following significant regarding this photograph : [ bold mine ]

A child with coloboma will receive specialist care at hospital during the early years to monitor the effect of the coloboma and their eye health. The frequency of these checks will depend on the child's needs. Children who have coloboma can be more at risk of glaucoma (increased eye pressure) and retinal detachment. There are treatments for both of these conditions which the hospital would explore with you.
If your child's eye health is stable and no further complications appear then they will usually attend an eye test every six months up to the age of seven years and then annually. These eye tests will usually take place with an optician or orthoptist.
Children with coloboma may need glasses. Glasses cannot correct the vision problems caused by the coloboma. However, glasses can correct short-sightedness or long-sightedness which can help to correct the parts of vision that haven't been affected by coloboma.
Sometimes cosmetic contact lenses may be considered at a later stage. These can help to make the pupil look round rather than keyhole shaped.
Prescription sunglasses due to the light-sensitivity may also be suggested, as may some low vision aids and equipment to help a child make the most of their sight.

Also, considering the prominence given to this eye defect by the parents, medical records would contain information re Maddie's eye.
It looks much more than a fleck on the cover of Kate's book. It looks like a classic coloboma imo as described on the RNIB web site.
Could it be, that the medical records (witheld) would have shown no coloboma at all, causing the marketing ploy to fall flat on its face, and secondly, to have scuppered a zillion sightings from all over the world, including the only real one: that of Maddie happily running around in her new environment, uncolombomaed, and therefore undetected?

But if there was no coloboma at all, surely Madeleine's GP would have alerted the police to this obvious lie?

by Guest 30.07.13 19:57

chris wrote:
Portia wrote:
russiandoll wrote:photoshopping or not, I find the following significant regarding this photograph : [ bold mine ]

A child with coloboma will receive specialist care at hospital during the early years to monitor the effect of the coloboma and their eye health. The frequency of these checks will depend on the child's needs. Children who have coloboma can be more at risk of glaucoma (increased eye pressure) and retinal detachment. There are treatments for both of these conditions which the hospital would explore with you.
If your child's eye health is stable and no further complications appear then they will usually attend an eye test every six months up to the age of seven years and then annually. These eye tests will usually take place with an optician or orthoptist.
Children with coloboma may need glasses. Glasses cannot correct the vision problems caused by the coloboma. However, glasses can correct short-sightedness or long-sightedness which can help to correct the parts of vision that haven't been affected by coloboma.
Sometimes cosmetic contact lenses may be considered at a later stage. These can help to make the pupil look round rather than keyhole shaped.
Prescription sunglasses due to the light-sensitivity may also be suggested, as may some low vision aids and equipment to help a child make the most of their sight.

Also, considering the prominence given to this eye defect by the parents, medical records would contain information re Maddie's eye.
It looks much more than a fleck on the cover of Kate's book. It looks like a classic coloboma imo as described on the RNIB web site.
Could it be, that the medical records (witheld) would have shown no coloboma at all, causing the marketing ploy to fall flat on its face, and secondly, to have scuppered a zillion sightings from all over the world, including the only real one: that of Maddie happily running around in her new environment, uncolombomaed, and therefore undetected?

But if there was no coloboma at all, surely Madeleine's GP would have alerted the police to this obvious lie?

IF she had a GP.None has come forward or be named.
And if he/she would have wanted to breach professional confidentality, going 'public' with CR lurking in the wings?

by loopzdaloop 30.07.13 19:57

Wahrheit wrote:I am always intrigued by this photo. On (I think) 12th June 2007 GM was wearing these exact clothes, glasses etc and looked just as sunburned. Amelie was wearing the exact same shirt on that day as in this photo except that it was pink. (Here is a photo from the series on Joana Morais ) Interestingly, it is the work of 5 minutes on photoshop to turn a pink shirt orange using the hue/saturation tool - I've done it easily and I'm no expert. I find it interesting also because of the little flecks of pink that still can be seen on the orange shirt especially around the tassels.

Wow!
I've never seen that top in pink before.
It would be interesting to know where it was bought as you could then conclusively say what colours it came in.
If it did come in orange as well as pink then that would be very interesting.
Kate had lots of detail about where she bought other clothes so it would be strange if she did not know.
I hope someone on here will alert Scotland yard to this piece of evidence as they said they were happy to take info from anywhere.

The question is, if the last photos were faked, then why.
There is definite evidence of fakery having been utilised, and if it was used once then why not again?

I think all this adds to the death occurring earlier than the day of the action.
Possibly the day that the neighbour heard crying all night, where the mccanns also retrofitted Maddie apparently asking the next morning 'why didn't you come for us mummy?', the only occasion the Mccanns concede information that might make them look bad. As proving Maddie was alive that day trumps being seen as neglectful.

by windchime 30.07.13 20:11

Portia wrote:
chris wrote:
Portia wrote:
russiandoll wrote:photoshopping or not, I find the following significant regarding this photograph : [ bold mine ]

A child with coloboma will receive specialist care at hospital during the early years to monitor the effect of the coloboma and their eye health. The frequency of these checks will depend on the child's needs. Children who have coloboma can be more at risk of glaucoma (increased eye pressure) and retinal detachment. There are treatments for both of these conditions which the hospital would explore with you.
If your child's eye health is stable and no further complications appear then they will usually attend an eye test every six months up to the age of seven years and then annually. These eye tests will usually take place with an optician or orthoptist.
Children with coloboma may need glasses. Glasses cannot correct the vision problems caused by the coloboma. However, glasses can correct short-sightedness or long-sightedness which can help to correct the parts of vision that haven't been affected by coloboma.
Sometimes cosmetic contact lenses may be considered at a later stage. These can help to make the pupil look round rather than keyhole shaped.
Prescription sunglasses due to the light-sensitivity may also be suggested, as may some low vision aids and equipment to help a child make the most of their sight.

Also, considering the prominence given to this eye defect by the parents, medical records would contain information re Maddie's eye.
It looks much more than a fleck on the cover of Kate's book. It looks like a classic coloboma imo as described on the RNIB web site.
Could it be, that the medical records (witheld) would have shown no coloboma at all, causing the marketing ploy to fall flat on its face, and secondly, to have scuppered a zillion sightings from all over the world, including the only real one: that of Maddie happily running around in her new environment, uncolombomaed, and therefore undetected?

But if there was no coloboma at all, surely Madeleine's GP would have alerted the police to this obvious lie?
IF she had a GP.None has come forward or be named.
And if he/she would have wanted to breach professional confidentality, going 'public' with CR lurking in the wings?

Having read the statements of the McCanns 2 Doctors I have a niggling thought that won't go away.

Dr P Hussey was their Dr from 2000 until quote 'March 2006' He states he never saw MBM for medical purposes.

Dr I R Schofield was their Dr following their move to Rothley and was their registered Dr from March 2007. He states he never saw MBM (they were registered with him for 2 months prior to PDL)

1. Why change Drs if you only move approx. 4 miles down the road?
2. Who was their Dr between March 2006 and March 2007?
3. If MBM had 5 bouts of absence from nursery (as told by the nursery teacher) within 6 months (and the 6 months prior to PDL) all for colds and high temperatures then surely at least one trip to a Dr would have been necessary - IMO - that's a lot of colds and absences in a 6 month period - IMO

Also if you check out Google - search ( dr p hussey Leicester gp error)??

Why in 4 years can neither Dr claim to have seen MBM and what happened for 12 months in between?

(sorry if this has been said before)

by Guest 30.07.13 20:29

Poe wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Cherry Blossom wrote:Who is/was Madeleine, each time I look at photos of her it just doesn't seem like the same little girl. I've not see this photo before, her nose seems different. Is it Madeleine?

What is that car in the back-ground. It looks like an old black one, a bit of a banger. Could it be a photo of Kate, changed a bit, looking at some 35 years ago when that sort of shiny material, fluffy edged jacket was the sort of stuff that C&A produced as ski wear for a growing UK winter skiing holiday market. I haven't seen that sort of material for a long time. Is any one current with that sort of material these days. With my kids all grown up, I'm out of the loop now.

That cannot be Madeleine. Her permanent (adult) front teeth are clearly visible making the girl in this photo 6 or 7 years old. I think this is probably an old photo of Kate.

This was definitely presented as being of Madeleine - note the ribbon and phone numbers in the top right.

Here are all (I think) of the photos that have been issued.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELEINE_PHOTOS.htm

I certainly think this one looks like an old photo of Kate though.

by Guest 30.07.13 20:30

There is reference to Dr. P. Hussey here

http://www.leicester.co.uk/listing/7492/

Dr P G Hussey
Melton Road, Syston, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE7 2EQ.
Dr P G Hussey is a general practitioner who offers a range of health care advice to patients. Dr P G Hussey is based in Melton Road, Syston - see map for location of Melton Road.

by tiny 30.07.13 20:38

I don't think this a photo of madeliene,the teeth are different,unless this is what madeliene really looked like

by Mike 30.07.13 20:42

tiny wrote:I don't think this a photo of madeliene,the teeth are different,unless this is what madeliene really looked like

And the nose looks different from Kate's, unless she had a nose job.

by MRNOODLES 30.07.13 20:54

Picture from gerry's blog

REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL by Dr Martin Roberts - Page 2 5f

odd innit

by loopzdaloop 30.07.13 22:40

windchime wrote:
Portia wrote:
chris wrote:
Portia wrote:
russiandoll wrote:photoshopping or not, I find the following significant regarding this photograph : [ bold mine ]

A child with coloboma will receive specialist care at hospital during the early years to monitor the effect of the coloboma and their eye health. The frequency of these checks will depend on the child's needs. Children who have coloboma can be more at risk of glaucoma (increased eye pressure) and retinal detachment. There are treatments for both of these conditions which the hospital would explore with you.
If your child's eye health is stable and no further complications appear then they will usually attend an eye test every six months up to the age of seven years and then annually. These eye tests will usually take place with an optician or orthoptist.
Children with coloboma may need glasses. Glasses cannot correct the vision problems caused by the coloboma. However, glasses can correct short-sightedness or long-sightedness which can help to correct the parts of vision that haven't been affected by coloboma.
Sometimes cosmetic contact lenses may be considered at a later stage. These can help to make the pupil look round rather than keyhole shaped.
Prescription sunglasses due to the light-sensitivity may also be suggested, as may some low vision aids and equipment to help a child make the most of their sight.

Also, considering the prominence given to this eye defect by the parents, medical records would contain information re Maddie's eye.
It looks much more than a fleck on the cover of Kate's book. It looks like a classic coloboma imo as described on the RNIB web site.
Could it be, that the medical records (witheld) would have shown no coloboma at all, causing the marketing ploy to fall flat on its face, and secondly, to have scuppered a zillion sightings from all over the world, including the only real one: that of Maddie happily running around in her new environment, uncolombomaed, and therefore undetected?

But if there was no coloboma at all, surely Madeleine's GP would have alerted the police to this obvious lie?
IF she had a GP.None has come forward or be named.
And if he/she would have wanted to breach professional confidentality, going 'public' with CR lurking in the wings?

Having read the statements of the McCanns 2 Doctors I have a niggling thought that won't go away.

Dr P Hussey was their Dr from 2000 until quote 'March 2006' He states he never saw MBM for medical purposes.

Dr I R Schofield was their Dr following their move to Rothley and was their registered Dr from March 2007. He states he never saw MBM (they were registered with him for 2 months prior to PDL)

1. Why change Drs if you only move approx. 4 miles down the road?
2. Who was their Dr between March 2006 and March 2007?
3. If MBM had 5 bouts of absence from nursery (as told by the nursery teacher) within 6 months (and the 6 months prior to PDL) all for colds and high temperatures then surely at least one trip to a Dr would have been necessary - IMO - that's a lot of colds and absences in a 6 month period - IMO

Also if you check out Google - search ( dr p hussey Leicester gp error)??

Why in 4 years can neither Dr claim to have seen MBM and what happened for 12 months in between?

(sorry if this has been said before)

I have two perspectives on this:

1) GP's are the people who are generally not the most successful in medical school (if they were any good at anything, they would be a specialist) [apart from the few who it is their passion]. Would they really need to go to a GP to be told to either a> take rest, B> take lots of fluids, c> take painkillers or d> take antibiotics. If I was a medical doctor and had all the training of a GP, why would I go to one to be told something that I would already know? For another example, if you are a mechanic, you are likely to fix your own car! What would the need be for the Mccann's to take their child to a GP to tell them what they know? They certainly won't need a 'sick note' for their child.

The other perspective is that if Maddie did have various difficulties associated with her sleep pattern, or developmental conditions related to the coloboma [if it existed] then it would be more likely that she was being seen by a specialist.

some GP surgeries are also quite strict with their geographical boundaries as to who is allowed to go to their surgery and if you change your address won't let you continue on at that surgery.

by Woofer 30.07.13 23:33

The GMC advises against GPs treating their own family, but apparently some do, though it was found that consultants generally did not.

http://www.thejournal.ie/one-third-of-gps-breaking-rules-over-treatment-of-relatives-167124-Jun2011/

Anyway Maddie would surely have had her immunisations done at a surgery (of which there are many these days) unless they helped themselves to the vials of vaccine and injected their own children at home.

by Miraflores 31.07.13 7:54

Vaccinations would be done by the nurse in a clinic - there would not be a GP involved.

by Guest 31.07.13 8:29

Two childhood photo's of KM

REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL by Dr Martin Roberts - Page 2 KateMccanngirl

Innocence: A young Kate McCann, right, takes her first communion with lifelong friend Nicky Gill

REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL by Dr Martin Roberts - Page 2 Katemccannchild2

REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL by Dr Martin Roberts - Page 2 Katemccannchild2

A family photo of Kate McCann as a child, pictured (left) with friend Nicky Gill outside a zoo

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id16.html

by View-from-Ireland 31.07.13 11:36

MRNOODLES wrote:Picture from gerry's blog

odd innit

OMG!!!!!!!!

That is THE photo of Madeleine, the one with the coloboma. Maybe it's just me, but to me it looks like the coloboma has been either airbrushed or reduced here in the above? It used to look much clearer in other copies of that photo??

Has anybody else noticed this?

by Ayniia 31.07.13 12:45

View-from-Ireland wrote:
MRNOODLES wrote:Picture from gerry's blog

odd innit

OMG!!!!!!!!

That is THE photo of Madeleine, the one with the coloboma. Maybe it's just me, but to me it looks like the coloboma has been either airbrushed or reduced here in the above? It used to look much clearer in other copies of that photo??

Has anybody else noticed this?

Just noticed that yes!!! OMG indeed!

by windchime 31.07.13 15:18

Ayniia wrote:
View-from-Ireland wrote:
MRNOODLES wrote:Picture from gerry's blog

odd innit

OMG!!!!!!!!

That is THE photo of Madeleine, the one with the coloboma. Maybe it's just me, but to me it looks like the coloboma has been either airbrushed or reduced here in the above? It used to look much clearer in other copies of that photo??

Has anybody else noticed this?
Just noticed that yes!!! OMG indeed!

Can someone who has far more knowledge of how to do these things than me put these two pictures side by side so we can compare the differences please?

Where did this particular one come from exactly by the way?

Thanks in advance!

by MRNOODLES 31.07.13 18:20

windchime wrote:
Ayniia wrote:
View-from-Ireland wrote:
MRNOODLES wrote:Picture from gerry's blog

odd innit

OMG!!!!!!!!

That is THE photo of Madeleine, the one with the coloboma. Maybe it's just me, but to me it looks like the coloboma has been either airbrushed or reduced here in the above? It used to look much clearer in other copies of that photo??

Has anybody else noticed this?
Just noticed that yes!!! OMG indeed!
Can someone who has far more knowledge of how to do these things than me put these two pictures side by side so we can compare the differences please?

Where did this particular one come from exactly by the way?

Thanks in advance!

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/MADELEINE_PHOTOS.htm

by MRNOODLES 31.07.13 18:23

REASONS TO BE CHEERFUL by Dr Martin Roberts - Page 2 SHIELDS-G-MADDIE

Off the same gallery

Which one has been tampered with?

by **tigger** 31.07.13 19:01

Amazing!
Both have been 'improved' - for a start the highly unnatural eyelashes
Spiky and very black - the skin in high magnification is airbrushed to perfection and the bags under her eyes have been eliminated at the same time.

I have no idea where Pamalan got this version. I doubt that TM ever posted this considering the coloboma is present in all the age advanced photos.

SY surely can't ditch it as well?

If you enlarge the coloboma one you can see the masking quite clearly - the nose seems to have been left alone.

by Monty Heck 31.07.13 20:08

MRNOODLES wrote:Picture from gerry's blog

odd innit

Not much sign of an iris fleck / coloboma there, unless much mistaken, even magnified to 400% on the zoom, hardly a mark to be seen. So is this the origninal of a photo that was altered to increase the "fleck" as a good marketing ploy for the campaign?

by worriedmum 31.07.13 21:00

where were these originally posted, please, and when?

by stillsloppingout 31.07.13 22:21

Its not a pro photo , as the background is pitch black , it was probably not taken on a SLR , lack of depth of field .
I have basic Photoshop ability , when i send to papers and mag's , i sharpen [ usually 30% !!! ] and a bit of auto contrast levels and thats it .

My take on all the pics is Gerry deliberately picked a varied range of pics to muddy the waters , in a [ missing person ] case the LAST picture taken is the shot as it is the latest image .

Gerry set out to confuse the issue ,including the Football top pic to re create in peoples minds the Holly and Jessica image .

It does appear that the image has had a bit of a brush up, none SLR cameras at that time would pull up to about 300 ish [ enlarging the original image makes any brushwork easier to do ] so you could do a bit with the image say improve the fleck in the eye , which it appears to have been done .

Photoshopping is NOT easy, and if done without skill can look obvious but done well it is almost impossible to tell .

The ' last pic " BTW only a fool would try and superimpose a child onto a frame . IMO

by Who?What?Where? 31.07.13 23:00

Maybe it is just me, but she look's like a porcelain, or very advanced plastic, doll, in MRNOODLES, side by side photos.

The nostril's do not look real. It might also, be very easy to change the eyes in a doll.

Log in for more topics