New picture?

I can see some similarities and the chin shape is similar, but the lips look much fuller on the new picture and I don't think Madeleine had pierced ears. And it is true that ears never stop growing, but did Madeleine's ears stand out as much as this? I think there is a colobama, but it is hard to say for certain. The eyes and nose look the same shape and the eyebrows look about right. Are the eyes the right colour? It is hard to tell because the picture is so dark. This child does not look very happy either. Where did the picture come from?

Rosiepops wrote:I can see some similarities and the chin shape is similar, but the lips look much fuller on the new picture and I don't think Madeleine had pierced ears. And it is true that ears never stop growing, but did Madeleine's ears stand out as much as this? I think there is a colobama, but it is hard to say for certain. The eyes and nose look the same shape and the eyebrows look about right. Are the eyes the right colour? It is hard to tell because the picture is so dark. This child does not look very happy either. Where did the picture come from?

From here I think.

http://maddiemaccann.hyves.nl/

But it is interesting you mention the ears sticking out, because in the picture the American facial age progresion used, Madeleine's ears DID seem to stick out, more than I realised. The nose on this picture does look a little larger, but the girl does have her head tilted back slightly. She does look a little unhappy, but that may not mean anything, just the mood she was in when it was taken. I'm 50/50 on this.

This could be her......where is it from and how and why?????

You are right Rosie to have removed it, of course. To me it looked genuine. But it could have been a very cruel hoax. A similar child and a doctored eye defect. As a portrait artist I concentrated on the bone structure and the "triangle" between eyes and end of nose. The angle of the photo foreshortened this a little. The mouth seemed a little fuller but that could happen with the 2 years growth change.

Still it's an amazing resemblance. And even if it's not her, this news did give me new hope she's still alive and findable.

It can't be ignored, that's for sure. Seemingly, the police are investigating it.

.

hi vee8 can you pm the picture please i would like to see the child in it.i have pm you about it,but incase you have noticed i popped it here to.Thanks chick.

as this been sent to the mccanns? have they viewed the picture?

This photo may/should be examined forensically. I know a little bit about this because of research I've done for my book. It's not done by the local bobbies, but is rather a special branch of the police who deal with it. So although Deuce referred the photo to the Leicestershire Police, they will merely pass it to the Geeks (as they are lovingly referred to by some police officers).

Deuce has been told to leave the thread where it is and lock it and she has done this. Some people have asked - why not just forward the photo to the police and delete the thread. However, if she did this, the source of the photo would be Deuce herself and obviously that's not correct so the police will want to establish a trail so that they can establish the photo's real origin. They will want to investigate who posted it at PFA and where they found it. Then they will go to that source and see if there is an earlier version and so on. It's like a chain of custody thing.

The photo itself will be examined forensically and it's amazing what they can do. Digital photos are stored on a computer in precisely the same way as any other computer file - in 1s and 0s. These 1s and 0s form patterns called bit patterns and each file's bit pattern is fairly unique. It's possible to search for bit patterns in the same way as you can do a search for a file name or a word in a document using pattern matching. Virus checkers work this way. If police get a good enough version of the photo, it might be possible for them to trawl the Internet looking for sites where the photo is located. They have some fairly sophisticated forensic computing technology these days.

Clairsey, the thread with the photos is here:-

http://www.pfa2.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2605

i brightened the picture up so you can see the mark in the child eyes clearer.It does seem to be the same mark Madeleine as on her eye.




This is the unknown child's right eye. I have zoomed in and brightened it up.


Below is Madeleine's zoomed in and close up.I must admit it does look very similar however i think the eyebrows are wrong,i know its been 2 years but they are completely different shape imo.Could be wrong of course because as i said its been two years since Madeleine as been taken. The colaboma appears to be slightly higher than what madeleines does to.,only slight,but i cant imagine it moving when the child mover their eyes because i would imagine it wouldn't move???the mark would still stay in the same place on the pupil regardless of which direction the eyes move yer?not sure.........,but Madeleine's is lower than that of the child in the picture.Although if you look at the top picture where forensics have pictured madeleine aged 6 the coloboma seems to be in the same place.But could that be because the colaboma as been moved slightly without realising it by those who done the picture,,or could it be that over 2 years the colaboma would have moved anyway with the slight growth of her eye? Im not sure.

i have cropped and pasted just the mouths to.Not sure about these,im not sure Madeleine's lips would have filled out much over 2 years.Madeleine as no top lip,or very little anyway.


the unknown child's mouth



Madeleines mouth,which is the fullest i have seen it because on all the pictures of her her lips look even thinner.I actually had hell trying to find a pictures of her with her mouth closed and not smliling.Bless her.
Try to find a picture of Madeleine online(to match with that of the child above) where she isn't smiling or happy and chatting!!!!.I couldnt find one.And the antis say she was a sad negelcted child???The little darling is always smiling and chattering away.

A point that a few posters have made is that the unknown child is photographed from a lower position that the photo of Madeleine which is being compared to it. That gives more of a view of the upper lip and nostrils so it's actually quite hard to compare those from the photos we are looking at here. I think there is a resemblance, but I also think it would take an expert to rule out a match.

I do agree that the upper lip looks fuller.

Jayelles wrote:A point that a few posters have made is that the unknown child is photographed from a lower position that the photo of Madeleine which is being compared to it. That gives more of a view of the upper lip and nostrils so it's actually quite hard to compare those from the photos we are looking at here. I think there is a resemblance, but I also think it would take an expert to rule out a match.

I do agree that the upper lip looks fuller.

I think it is right that the PI's etc are looking into this............

Maybe it is only me but I think the coloboma in this unknown child's eye looks more like a straight line whilst in Madeleine's eye it is thicker close to the pupil and then becomes thinner closer to the iris? Or could this change with age too?

DELETED

hi alex

lol,i think the picture was posted here this morning but removed out of respect for this child in the picture lol.

I saw the picture earlier,imo it doesn't look like Madeleine,not when she was 3 or how she might look today.Its been 2 years and that's correct,but imo a child doesn't alter that much in 2 years so that they appear as a completely different child altogether.I could be wrong i think this child is joe blogs's daughter!

clairesy wrote:hi vee8 can you pm the picture please i would like to see the child in it.i have pm you about it,but incase you have noticed i popped it here to.Thanks chick.

as this been sent to the mccanns? have they viewed the picture?

Done! And for what it's worth I am 90% sure it IS Madeleine.

IMO best to tell every owner of a website where you see the picture to pull it. This little girl has nothing to do with Madeleine and if I were her parent I wouldn't be happy if the picture was circulating on the internet.
There's too many weirdo's trawling for pictures of children.

ETA there seems to be some confusion about that photo if it's dismissed/investigated or not. So may be best to wait till we know for sure what's going on.

Deleted

Cath wrote:IMO best to tell every owner of a website where you see the picture to pull it. This little girl has nothing to do with Madeleine and if I were her parent I wouldn't be happy if the picture was circulating on the internet.
There's too many weirdo's trawling for pictures of children.

ETA there seems to be some confusion about that photo if it's dismissed/investigated or not. So may be best to wait till we know for sure what's going on.

The picture has been forwarded to the Leicestershire police, who are taking it very seriously, and are in contact with the person who first posted it on the PFA2 forum, after recieving it herself. The similarities between the two pictures are profound, and the more I look, the more I see Madeleine.

By the way, does anyone know what the 3p's are saying about this, assuming they have seen it?

.

Deleted

AlexG wrote:

vee8 wrote:
The picture has been forwarded to the Leicestershire police, who are taking it very seriously, and are in contact with the person who first posted it on the PFA2 forum, after recieving it herself. The similarities between the two pictures are profound, and the more I look, the more I see Madeleine.

Vee, wasn't the picture first posted on http://maddiemaccann.hyves.nl/ ?

That's right. Then the person who recieved the picture, who is also a member of PFA2, posted it up there. that was the first time, so far as I'm aware, it was posted anywhere in this country.