Dutch Sighting/DNA Result

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22187150-401,00.html

Ive just read that report.I have read it before i think ...or one very similar.And one thing that bothers me all the time about these sort of reported sightings is why they don't actually report further on them...I would like to actually hear the women who swore it was madeleine take a look at the child they said was not her...and then say that that was the same child she saw at the restaurant, and was mistaken. I wonder if the therapist actually got to see the child in question????If she was face to face with her and able to clarify weather that was infact the same little girl that she swore she thought was Madeleine. All the sightings have been the same haven't they?? The women who saw her in the shop saying...'' they took me from my holiday,shes not my mummy ''...did she ever get to see the child in question and say weather its the same child???if not then why??if they haven't found the child in question then have they ruled out that it wasn't madeleine??

Its like a wild goose chase only with a real child...the anti mccanns are calling the wrong people circus actors when they refer to the mccanns because imo the police seem very laid back about these reported sightings. Why?

clairesy wrote:Ive just read that report.I have read it before i think ...or one very similar.And one thing that bothers me all the time about these sort of reported sightings is why they don't actually report further on them...I would like to actually hear the women who swore it was madeleine take a look at the child they said was not her...and then say that that was the same child she saw at the restaurant, and was mistaken. I wonder if the therapist actually got to see the child in question????If she was face to face with her and able to clarify weather that was infact the same little girl that she swore she thought was Madeleine. All the sightings have been the same haven't they?? The women who saw her in the shop saying...'' they took me from my holiday,shes not my mummy ''...did she ever get to see the child in question and say weather its the same child???if not then why??if they haven't found the child in question then have they ruled out that it wasn't madeleine??

Its like a wild goose chase only with a real child...the anti mccanns are calling the wrong people circus actors when they refer to the mccanns because imo the police seem very laid back about these reported sightings. Why?

Caire, you have several very good points there.

It is all too easy for the police to check the situation out and be assured by someone respectable looking that the little girl in question is their daughter/neice, whatever, and for the Police to then go away.

This whole circus (sorry can't think of a better word) just stinks of big money, corruption and massive organisation. There are red herrings littering the place everywhere, and to me they seems to have been deliberately laid. So much so, that it is impossible for the ordinary person to see the wood for the trees. To me it seems as though there is a big international organisation behind it and mega millions to be made. The question is who, or what, runs that organisation and does it appear cosher (genuine) from the outside - or is it a well known criminal Organisation, such as one of the mafias?

The longer I live, the more I notice that things that appear cosher, are often not. There is too much positive marketting (spin) going on and also cover up, so that we cannot tell what is the truth and what is not. Now for me, if someone in authority smiles at me charmingly on the TV and tells me, 'very sincerely', that what he is suggesting will make everyones life better - then I think, UH-UH what are they hiding now; what are they going to do to hurt us now?

OK, I'm a bit cynical, but that has happened to me over and over - just in recent years. We are in the period of 'the smile and the lie'.

What I am trying to say, is that Claire, you are right. If there are any future sightings then the police should arrange for both the witness and a member of the Mccann family to go together, at the same time, and actually see that child. Then the witness can check that the child is the one he/she saw and the family can confirm that the child is not Madeleine.

After that the child and her family should be left in peace.

Many of us on here feel very disturbed about that little blonde girl by the bank, was it in Belgium? Many of us really think that she might well have been Madeleine. Had the above procedure been used to check her out, then we would all have accepted that we were mistaken.

Please, please, if there are any futher sightings, let this SAFE procedure be used in future.

hi sadie,

ive wondered that a lot,that maybe a organisation is behind this abduction.And that this organisation as got a member who is also very high up and able to control more than we think. Just because someone as a respecable job such as head of cops or mp etc doesnt mean they aint human.....and it doesnt mean they are all sain either. Take a look at the latest porn scandle in the uk with whosit???

Some of them take advantage of their jobs and use them to their advantage. Unfortunetly sometimes innocent people are their targets to.

An article i once got ingrossed in said that some poeple who wish to harm others, weather they be children or adults actually plan it for years. Some take college courses and get degrees in certain fields of work so that they have accsess to members of the public. A person might want to be a doctor so that he/she can abuse poeple.So they start right from the start and once they are qualified they start abusing. Like a sick fantasy.

these types of people usually like the controlling feel they get from it to. That they control and have power over their victim. So it wouldn't surprise me that a high up person with lots of CONTROL AND POWER, might be behind Madeleines abduction..........mp's.....liminati... mafia (whatever they are called) ................. they are all very powerful poeple...they are where they are in life because they like to be in control and powerful over other poeple. Give a sexual predator that same control and power and this is what you get.......... A missing person case with twists and turns that even the tops dogs cant untwist.

clairesy wrote:hi sadie,

ive wondered that a lot,that maybe a organisation is behind this abduction.And that this organisation as got a member who is also very high up and able to control more than we think. Just because someone as a respecable job such as head of cops or mp etc doesnt mean they aint human.....and it doesnt mean they are all sain either. Take a look at the latest porn scandle in the uk with whosit???

Some of them take advantage of their jobs and use them to their advantage. Unfortunetly sometimes innocent people are their targets to.

An article i once got ingrossed in said that some poeple who wish to harm others, weather they be children or adults actually plan it for years. Some take college courses and get degrees in certain fields of work so that they have accsess to members of the public. A person might want to be a doctor so that he/she can abuse poeple.So they start right from the start and once they are qualified they start abusing. Like a sick fantasy.

these types of people usually like the controlling feel they get from it to. That they control and have power over their victim. So it wouldn't surprise me that a high up person with lots of CONTROL AND POWER, might be behind Madeleines abduction..........mp's.....liminati... mafia (whatever they are called) ................. they are all very powerful poeple...they are where they are in life because they like to be in control and powerful over other poeple. Give a sexual predator that same control and power and this is what you get.......... A missing person case with twists and turns that even the tops dogs cant untwist.

The long and short of it, Claire, is that we dont know, BUT IMO, there are so many Red herrings and happenings about that no ordinary abductor/paedophile could have thought them up and arranged them.

It could be about control, maybe blackmail of Governments, power; it could be about illegal sex, which is the thing that most of us dread, I think; it could be about a big criminal money spinning organisation. I'm talking massive; the sort of organisation that might make multi millions from people/child trafficking every year - and you know, some of these groups would not hesitate to kill someone if they thought that they were going to lose their freedom, or their gravy train.

In one of my jobs, I came across a trained mercenary. He was a great character and very likeable; I really liked him and he had lots of high ideals, BUT his job was to kill, and no he wasn't a WUM, I'm sure of that. He was British Army trained - an ex regular, had killed in battle, had some special skills in weaponry and was part of a group. This group would get a call, assemble from all over the place, work out their plan of action and go in and do the deed, ruthlessly and silently. He was a professional killer, but he wouldn't dream of killing anyone he had a massive fall out with; he only did it to order. That was his job as far as he was concerned and they were in and out before anyone knew about it

They were experts and knew how to keep their mouths shut afterwards

His group of Mercenaries sold their skills to Governments who wanted people killed, but wanted to appear whiter than white; to other Military Organisations; in fact to anyone with big money who wanted some people killed on the quiet - no matter who.

What I am trying to tell you is that we are not equipped to deal with such organisations, because they have the money and could put the order in! We can develop our theories, but if they involve some of the groups I have listed, would we be wise to do anything about it? They are what I call the 'untouchables'.

Appart from some of these massive groups, some of which I doubt would kill, there are smaller Elite groups and in this country, at least, I think they would mainly be unlikely to kill. And then you have the small crooks, smugglers/paedos etc. and I doubt many of them would kill either, even if desperate. Most people even when they are evil in lots of ways would not coldbloodedly kill, I would have thought.

I've gone off beam a bit here, so lets have a look at what your closing words were:

[QUOTE}.....Give a sexual predator that same control and power and this is what you get.......... A missing person case with twists and turns that even the tops dogs cant untwist.[QUOTE]


Now this is what makes me think that this is not just a Joe Bloggs sexual preadator! The twists and turns are too many and too complex for your ordinary Joe Bloggs. This has to have been done by some persons who have massive connections IMO

Not sure it was Madeleine by the Belgium Bank.....but was pretty sure that the woman holding her hand was the same woman in the Morroccan Photo........

Catkins wrote:Not sure it was Madeleine by the Belgium Bank.....but was pretty sure that the woman holding her hand was the same woman in the Morroccan Photo........

Absolutely .. it's this particular sighting that sticks in my mind (and pulls me back when I start to wonder if the Smith sighting was the abductor carrying a dead Madeleine .. and it's depressing to even type that) .. I still don't think that the Belgian sighting has been properly explained .. Again, what's the odds of 2 sightings of Madeleine with the same woman .. and IMO it was the same woman.

Catkins wrote:Not sure it was Madeleine by the Belgium Bank.....but was pretty sure that the woman holding her hand was the same woman in the Morroccan Photo........

Now, I though that the mannerisms were Madeleines, especially something about the way she held her arms. I really think that could have been Madeleine.

Why didn't they use the safe method of checking her out, as I suggested above - then we would know for sure.

Now the Muslim woman holding her hand? She might have been the same woman that we saw in Morocco; the manner of dress is similar, but we have to be careful not be influenced by that. From memory, I rather think that the woman in Morocco was bigger built, more burly. Maybe I haven't looked hard enough

Out of all the sightings, there are two that I cannot clear from my mind, the Moroccan one and the Belgian one, these two get me every time, I cannot get them out of my mind, they refuse to budge, is this just coincidental?

Turns out that I am far from the only one that keeps splicing these two sightings together.

As soon as I saw the Moroccan woman in the Belgian sighting, it struck me how similar to the Moroccan woman she was and I know what made me think this, apart from I think they look very much alike in height etc, but it was the manly type gait that struck me and this was present in both sightings, even though one was a still.

There are things that are not explained in both of these sightings.

The Moroccan sighting, how do we know that the child produced for the camera, was the same child in the photograph? She looked a different child to me and where were the others in that photograph? Why were they not present for the journalists? Also where were these people coming from with suitcases? Looked like one of them had gone to meet someone expecting there to be luggage. OK I buy that there are blonde haired children native to Morocco, in fact I know there are, but these children are usually born to people that have this in the immediate family or grandparents and something here is not right. How can a blonde haired child be born to someone where both sets of parents have darkest brown eyes, black hair and dark skins? If one or the other had fair hair etc then yes this is believable, however, I am still willing to be proved wrong and if this child really did belong to them, why did they not explain and why did the journalist not ask where the fair hair and skin actually came from? It would have to be somewhere in the family line and as this was so pertinent to the whole story, do you not think it odd that these people that seemed to love being photographed and talking to the journalists about all this did not mention the very reason why they were being photographed? Also that "mother" looked too old to have a child that age, she looked more like a grandmother, in fact she looked about 65 at least! Never mind perhaps it is years of sun damage! There was something odd about that group of people walking along too, none of them looked like they belonged together and sometimes it is things like this, that we are not really aware of that makes us alert to when something is not quite what it seems to be.

The same way that bank security guard caught sight of this child and this woman and something alerted him that all was not right there and so he went in for a closer look!

How do we know that the father that came forward and said that this was his daughter with her nanny, was telling the truth? Did the Belgian police investigate this properly? A 'Moroccan' nanny who cannot speak French is a bit odd, but a Moroccan nanny hired in Belgium where they speak French, who could not speak French and could not converse properly with the child she was in charge with, is just pushing it a little too far.

I cannot shake the images of that little girl out of my mind and it looked like she was being paraded in front of the cameras on purpose and no adequate explanation has ever come from this that sounds plausible.

Rosiepops wrote:....................
There are things that are not explained in both of these sightings.

The Moroccan sighting, how do we know that the child produced for the camera, was the same child in the photograph? She looked a different child to me and where were the others in that photograph? I agree Rosie
Why were they not present for the journalists? Also where were these people coming from with suitcases? Looked like one of them had gone to meet someone expecting there to be luggage. Suitcases are not too common in Morocco from my experience, most things seem to be carried in bundles, hanging from the sides of overladen donkeys. Other things are often carried in rough matchwood boxes in pushcarts - don't remember seeing any suitcases amongst the indigenous population. This sighting was in a remote mountainous area in the north of Morocco wasn't it? I would have thought that suitcases would only normally have been used when a flight was being taken. Not many airports in Morocco, I would have thought. Will take a look at Google Earth and see if I can find a private airstrip nearby.

Most people seem to travel around using lorries (All standing up on the very top of lorries, balanced on boxes and cattle feed etc! - quite a sight! They even carry cows perched on top of the loaded lorry - standing on the boxes!) or by Grande taxis, which are bashed up old Mercedes that only go when they have a full complement of (I think) 8 passengers, or by camel, or donkey, or tiny motorbike. Now there are trains, I believe, but I think most people would carry their clothes in bundles on trains, but I dont know.

OK I buy that there are blonde haired children native to Morocco, in fact I know there are, but these children are usually born to people that have this in the immediate family or grandparents and something here is not right. I think they are Berbers aren't they?
How can a blonde haired child be born to someone where both sets of parents have darkest brown eyes, black hair and dark skins? If one or the other had fair hair etc then yes this is believable, however, I am still willing to be proved wrong and if this child really did belong to them, why did they not explain and why did the journalist not ask where the fair hair and skin actually came from? It would have to be somewhere in the family line Agreed. My understanding is that there can be a throw back from a previous generation, but this little girl did not look like her parents at all - and i am not talking skin and hair colour here, but features, and am I correct that dark pigmentation tends to be dominant in cross colour parenting?

And you know what struck me, Rosie, the little girl in the controversial photo, who did look like Madeleine, didn't look very much like the little girl presented to the press later on. What does everyone think, is it the same little girl or not? Can any one put the two photos up side by side, please - so that we can better judge?

......and as this was so pertinent to the whole story, do you not think it odd that these people that seemed to love being photographed and talking to the journalists about all this did not mention the very reason why they were being photographed? Also that "mother" looked too old to have a child that age, she looked more like a grandmother, in fact she looked about 65 at least! Never mind perhaps it is years of sun damage! Moroccans do go wizzern at a younger age than we do
There was something odd about that group of people walking along too, none of them looked like they belonged together and sometimes it is things like this, that we are not really aware of that makes us alert to when something is not quite what it seems to be. You are very observant and I am sure you are right in thinking that the oddities should alert us

The same way that bank security guard caught sight of this child and this woman and something alerted him that all was not right there and so he went in for a closer look!

How do we know that the father that came forward and said that this was his daughter with her nanny, was telling the truth? Did the Belgian police investigate this properly? A 'Moroccan' nanny who cannot speak French is a bit odd, but a Moroccan nanny hired in Belgium where they speak French, who could not speak French and could not converse properly with the child she was in charge with, is just pushing it a little too far...........Hmm, interesting - didn't know that!

I cannot shake the images of that little girl out of my mind and it looked like she was being paraded in front of the cameras on purpose and no adequate explanation has ever come from this that sounds plausible.

Rosie, do you think that Leicestershire Police or the McCanns have been given adequate explanation? Because, if not, how's about if they went in again, both in Belgium and Morocco, with a Mccann family mamber and DNA kit, and checked them out.

when the sighting of the child on the womens back in morroco first appeared " how quick did they find this family and parade them infront of the camera!!! yet when the images of the child at the bank in belgium came out were they so quick to parade this child?... NO..... WHY?


THERE IS DEFFO SOMETHING ABOUT THESE 2 SIGHTINGS THAT NIGGLE AT ME...
i for one think the child on morrocon womens back is not the same as the child they paraded...for us to see

minx x

Well minxy,..........theres a lot about her that doesnt add up........her birth certificate for one was out of date,the child date of birth would have made her older i think. So it brings me to ask this......when the family of this Moroccan child showed the papers her birth certificate to prove she was there's who's birth certificate did they really have?

And like you said before.........the child at the bank was almost deliberately walked infront of the cameras.Back and forth....back and forth...almost as if they were proving to someone that they have her.

clairesy wrote:Well minxy,..........theres a lot about her that doesnt add up........her birth certificate for one was out of date,the child date of birth would have made her older i think. So it brings me to ask this......when the family of this Moroccan child showed the papers her birth certificate to prove she was there's who's birth certificate did they really have? thats right clairesy we spoke about this many times, also how the childs features differ from the photo's

And like you said before.........the child at the bank was almost deliberately walked infront of the cameras.Back and forth....back and forth...almost as if they were proving to someone that they have her.

YEP


god i wished i had a cyrstal ball...

clairesy wrote:Well minxy,..........theres a lot about her that doesnt add up........her birth certificate for one was out of date,the child date of birth would have made her older i think. So it brings me to ask this......when the family of this Moroccan child showed the papers her birth certificate to prove she was there's who's birth certificate did they really have?

And like you said before.........the child at the bank was almost deliberately walked infront of the cameras.Back and forth....back and forth...almost as if they were proving to someone that they have her.

Yes you see this is why talking over things like this jogs the memory, I had forgotten that about the birth certificate Clairesy, didn't one of our members discover this? If I remember correctly she wrote about this on the forum and received short shrift form 'someone', yet she stood her ground and was proved right. I must look for that post, I do remember coming across it when I was moving posts around.

However, you are right and that is a very important point too, this birth certificate, if I remember correctly also looked like it had been altered, or am I mixing this up with something else?

Minxy, I agree with you, there is something highly suspect about these two sightings, question is what is being done about it? If we think this then the chances of the private detectives also think it.
This is so frustrating, I wish we knew, but then why should we? If they are investigating this they are hardly going to shout what they are doing from the rooftops are they?
I feel that something is going on, something in this case is moving I am sure it is, please God that this does not end in another dead end.

I think I said this before, so apologies if I have. The famous Moroccan photo is a photoshop job. The girl on the woman's back is Madeleine, but she herself was not there, we were just meant to think so. The family was found, less than twenty four hours later, not by a detective, but a journalist, who happened to fly out from Britain, scoured the Moroccan hills, and found the exact family, and got a copy of the birth certificate. Given that these people were poor, semi-illiterate farmers, and would in most circumstances have never even bothered with officialdom or paperwork, and all this in less than a day. This journalist has already suffered several severe reprimands for bringing his profession into disrespect, i.e. inventing stories. And the birth certificate showed the girl was born in 1946.
The girl in the Belgian sighting IS Madeleine, and is again meant to be a taunting for some reason. The family claim to be Belgian, but Madeleine was talking in English. Why would a five year old child talk to her nanny in perfect English?
Finally, what about the French motorway cafe sighting? A student was in her car, and saw a child happily dancing on the forecourt, as close to her as my dining table is to me now. She called out the name Madeleine, and the child turned, startled, and looked at the student. The student distinctly saw the eye coloboma. This was all caught on cctv, and the first policeman to arrive, saw the footage and confirmed that in his opinion it was, without doubt, Madeleine. But, when the higher authorities got hold of this footage, they declaired it wasn't Madeleine, and TO THIS DAY the parents have not been allowed to see that footage. Why?

Someone is hiding something about this footage.

I also think there was more to the Moroccan sighting than meets the eye. That little child on the womans back in no way resembled the child we were led to believe it was. The journalist found this family much too quickly for my liking and the childs hair from what I can remember was completely different, I even think the parting was on a different side.

The only thing that throws me is if I take the child out of it, the mother of the child, from memory, did resemble the photo of the woman carrying a child on her back. But I still maintain the 2 photos of the child are not the same one.

Sadie you mentioned mannerisms, I've noticed previously with Madeleine there is a way she drops her head to one side before either looking up or down, its almost a swing of the head and if you study the photo in Belgium, there is a point when the little girl looks up at the woman and back down again and it is very uncanny!.

Minxy,
Also remember the pictures i once posted on here of that little Moroccan girl....her hair naturally parted in a completely different way to Madeleine.............and the child on the woman's back had the same parting as madeleine,not the other child. Definitely doesn't add up.I hope it is madeleine. I really wish we could have some more information or new sightings etc.Maybe this new reconstruction will shine a little bit of light on the case for them,without im starting to wonder about her fate i really am.


Hi vee8,

i wasn't aware that Kate and Gerry wasn't shown that footage???Thats bizarre. I wonder why not? Without dna or other definite identification then i would imagine her parents are the best judges there.

Gerry is on record, on his blog I think, as saying he just had to accept the word of the French police that it wasn't her. Personally I would be spitting feathers and creating merry hell if I was told something as condecending as that.

Tinkerbell43 wrote:I also think there was more to the Moroccan sighting than meets the eye. That little child on the womans back in no way resembled the child we were led to believe it was. The journalist found this family much too quickly for my liking and the childs hair from what I can remember was completely different, I even think the parting was on a different side.

The only thing that throws me is if I take the child out of it, the mother of the child, from memory, did resemble the photo of the woman carrying a child on her back. But I still maintain the 2 photos of the child are not the same one.

Sadie you mentioned mannerisms, I've noticed previously with Madeleine there is a way she drops her head to one side before either looking up or down, its almost a swing of the head and if you study the photo in Belgium, there is a point when the little girl looks up at the woman and back down again and it is very uncanny!.

Exactly so Tinks. One thing about the Moroccan woman in the group photo with them all walking along the road and the one with the ?same woman, the man and the child, we did not see the woman's face in the group photo, so they could have got any plump woman and dressed her the same. But this is not to say that this was not the same woman, it may very well have been.

As Sadie pointed out, suitcases in this part of Morocco and walking along the road? Where did this group come from? Why was the man pushing the wheelbarrow conveniently there to help with the luggage? If there was a bus, or taxi or they got dropped off, how did the man know to be there at that particular time? If it was just one person returning to her village, why so much luggage? If this person did come from that village, it is doubtful she would have that many personal belongings, let alone enough clothes etc to fill suitcases! These people are meant to be living in poverty, so how do people go in and out of the village, travelling costs money and how do they communicate?

I think that the Moroccan woman in the hijab is highly suspect and one other thing, if they were all Muslim, then why wasn't the woman in the colourful hat wearing a hijab? And if she wasn't a Muslim then why were they meeting a Muslim with a lot of luggage and taking her into their village?

Lastly where was the woman in the hijab when the journalist was supposed to be there interviewing this group?

I maintain there was something odd about this group, this group looked ill at ease with each other, almost as if they were strangers.

That child on the back of that woman is definitely not the child in the photograph that this journalist was supposed to have found so quickly.

I did not read of the journalist being reprimanded for bring his profession into to disrepute, however if this is true, then this family with the fair haired child look to be NOT the same as those in the group, so who were they and why did they lie and why did this journalist lie? Who was he? What nationality was he?

More to the point, what investigations were carried out when M3 finally tracked this family down for themselves?

Not forgetting here that Kate and Gerry were convinced that Madeleine was abducted, taken along the coastal road by car to Tarifa in southern Spain and taken across to North Africa by the Tangers ferry, that crosses to and from Morocco! Remember also that M3 were also convinced that Madeleine was being kept somewhere in the Rif mountains!

[quote="vee8"]I think I said this before, so apologies if I have. The famous Moroccan photo is a photoshop job. The girl on the woman's back is Madeleine, but she herself was not there, we were just meant to think so.

I dont understand this Vee. Are you sure this is a photoshop job. How do you know? Are you saying that the woman was carrying Madeleine, but the background is false?

The family was found, less than twenty four hours later, not by a detective, but a journalist, who happened to fly out from Britain, scoured the Moroccan hills, and found the exact family, and got a copy of the birth certificate. Given that these people were poor, semi-illiterate farmers, and would in most circumstances have never even bothered with officialdom or paperwork, and all this in less than a day. This journalist has already suffered several severe reprimands for bringing his profession into disrespect, i.e. inventing stories.
That does seem very quick for a journalist to find the family. Altho the person who supplied the photograph will have specified the place where it was taken I guess. Navigating aroung Morocco isn't easy unless you are on very main roads or can read Arabic. Now my Arabic is a bit dodgy and we got hopelessly lost on two occasions! The trouble was that we weren't any better at speaking it, so couldn't ask the way - great adventure though! It seems to me that the place where this sighting took place was further from civilisation than we usually went. Just thought, they may have hired a local taxi. The petite taxis are bashed up little fiats, i think - not sure if they use them for cross country or the bashed up big Mercedes. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt that they managed it in 24 hours.

And the birth certificate showed the girl was born in 1946. WELL!
The girl in the Belgian sighting IS Madeleine, I agree, it was Madeliene, and I think kate and Gerry thought so as well
and is again meant to be a taunting for some reason. But i wonder why?

The family claim to be Belgian, but Madeleine was talking in English. Why would a five year old child talk to her nanny in perfect English? Are we sure that the child was heard talking in English or was it just a newspaper report from one of the rags?

Finally, what about the French motorway cafe sighting? A student was in her car, and saw a child happily dancing on the forecourt, as close to her as my dining table is to me now. She called out the name Madeleine, and the child turned, startled, and looked at the student. The student distinctly saw the eye coloboma. This was all caught on cctv, and the first policeman to arrive, saw the footage and confirmed that in his opinion it was, without doubt, Madeleine. Hmm, interesting But, when the higher authorities got hold of this footage, they declaired it wasn't Madeleine,Hmm, Even more interesting

..and TO THIS DAY the parents have not been allowed to see that footage. Why? Very, very interesting. Yes, WHY? What's it all about?

Tinkerbell43 wrote:I also think there was more to the Moroccan sighting than meets the eye. That little child on the womans back in no way resembled the child we were led to believe it was. The journalist found this family much too quickly for my liking and the childs hair from what I can remember was completely different, I even think the parting was on a different side.

The only thing that throws me is if I take the child out of it, the mother of the child, from memory, did resemble the photo of the woman carrying a child on her back. But I still maintain the 2 photos of the child are not the same one.

Sadie you mentioned mannerisms, I've noticed previously with Madeleine there is a way she drops her head to one side before either looking up or down, its almost a swing of the head and if you study the photo in Belgium, there is a point when the little girl looks up at the woman and back down again and it is very uncanny!.

Tinks, the mannerism that I noticed particularly was the way that the little girl held her arms up when talking to the Moroccan nanny right at the end - most unusual and I feel that I have seen Madeleine do that.

NOW JUDGE FOR YOURSELF









(Abdelhak Senna/AFP/Getty Images)

Bouchra Binhisa carried by her mother Hafida in Zinat, Morocco







Analysing the four photos

1. Hair. The fringe of the little girl shown on the womans back looks like Madeleines with some growth. The carrying photograph was taken near the end of August 2007, over 3 months after M's abduction. From googling it, the general concensus seems to be that generally hair grows about 1/2" (!.27mm) per month. Is this fringe roughly 1 3/4" longer than Madeleines in the tennis shot? Of course it could have been cut. Does this fringe look anything like the fringe of Bouchra? I leave you to judge. What about the hair colour and thickness?
   
2. The eyes. Difficult to judge, but I favour one
   
3. The ratio of nose length to upper lip length - suggest you look at the top Madeleine picture for camparison - the photo just doesn't match one of the children when you look at this nose/ upper lip ratio
   
4. The cheeks and face shape - I have a favourite here too
   
5. The position that the little girl sits on the womans back. Notice how much taller Bouchra looks. Is this because she hasn't settled yet, or is she a bigger child?
   

The lady who took the original photo of (?) Madeleine is Clara Torres. For your interest I enclose an extract from The Sargeants Blog by Blackwatch - 02/02/09



www.thesargeants.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=216



..........Rupert's brother Charles Symington (39) has extensive business links with the Spanish-South American Wine Empire, Miguel Torres. The company has offices and wineries in Barcelona, Spain, Sweden, Chile and California. Followers of the Madeleine McCann case may remember that it was Clara Torres, the Spanish tourist from Albacete who took the photograph of 'Madeleine' in Morocco in September last year. However, it has not been established whether or not Clara Torres is a member of the Barcelona dynasty........Hmm, interesting, but nothing more, unless there is a family link proved - then it would be very much more interesting!

I should have said that, IN MY OPINION it's a photoshop job! I wrote that piece in a bit of a hurry, because I was in the middle of something else. To be more clear, I think the picture of Madeleine was chopped into the original photo, rather than the whole picture was chopped around. Can't remember where I read about the journalist, but it's on the net somewhere. I'll try and find it later.

When Christabel comes on later, she has said this from day one about this photograph, when it first emerged.

The child in the photograph, look at where the legs should be, this does not equate with a girl the age of Bouchra, the legs of the girl in the original photograph are longer I believe. You can't really see it in your photograph because I think it has been enlarged and it has lost some of its resolution.
The girl's legs in the original photograph are coming right down, look where the foot is and the ? woman, is carrying Bouchra in a very different way to how she is supposedly carrying her in the original photograph and the child in this original photograph is much taller than Bouchra.

Also what we can clearly see from the Torres photograph, that the woman in the photograph carrying the child, we could not see her face and so anyone could have been in that photograph the journalist had taken and no one would really know if it was the correct woman.

Looking at these photographs again, I swear that this person carryin that child is a man dressed as a woman. Now women pick these things up, we sense them. Have a llok for yourselves, see what you think.
(One thing I must say, I see the woman in the hat is in fact wearing ascarf under her hat, so that does my hijab point in.)

Look at how smart the luggage is and so much luggage too! It does not fit in.

The woman in the hijab dressed in the dark clothes, is that a flight tag I see on her case?

Ms Torres the Spanish tourist is adament about what she saw. By the way it is not unusual for people from Spain to hop on the ferry and go over to Africa for the day of for a short break, it happens all the time. Also many people from Africa actually work in and around Tarifa and cross via the ferry every day.

Also the bone structure between the girl in the photograph and Bouchra simply does not fit and this is visible despite the poor quality of the photograph.