Why was the first missing poster of a younger Madeleine?

[xtina]

This is the video Lace posted and there is a girl with pale pyjamas on, no red dress. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32POkpBO7sU

how come on that video maddies hair is dark brown .....in fact it practically looks like a wig............

[Robittybob1]

OK on page 53 of Madeleine Kate tells us her twins were born. 1st of February 2005, so those Christmas videos with the twins just walking and in nappies would more than likely be Christmas 2005 rather than Christmas 2006 when they would have been nearly two.

how come on that video maddies hair is dark brown .....in fact it practically looks like a wig............

It will depend on the amount of reflection of light.  Low light situations her hair would look dark.

[xtina]

OK on page 53 of Madeleine Kate tells us her twins were born. 1st of February 2005, so those Christmas videos with the twins just walking and in nappies would more than likely be Christmas 2005 rather than Christmas 2006 when they would have been nearly two.
 It will depend on the amount of reflection of light.  Low light situations her hair would look dark.

thats what i thought but the twins doesn't

[Robittybob1]

This is the comment I have put on the YT "The title of this video is wrong.  The twins look just on a year old and not nearly 2 years old  if it really was Christmas 2006.  They were born 1 feb 2005.  They must have been early walking children."
Reply   

[Robittybob1]

thats what i thought but the twins doesn't

Amelie looks blonder than Madeleine.  OK.

But do you all agree it was Christmas 2005 rather than Christmas 2006?

[jassi]

Yes, I don't think Madeleine has ever been truly blonde, certainly not in the ways the twins were.

[Robittybob1]

Yes, I don't think Madeleine has ever been truly blonde, certainly not in the ways the twins were.

I agree,  But do you all agree it was Christmas 2005 rather than Christmas 2006?

[jassi]

I agree,  But do you all agree it was Christmas 2005 rather than Christmas 2006?

That has always been my opinion.

[xtina]

Amelie looks blonder than Madeleine.  OK.

But do you all agree it was Christmas 2005 rather than Christmas 2006?

yes you certainly have a point ......both.......... walking then at ten months   &%+((£

[Robittybob1]

yes you certainly have a point ......both.......... walking then at ten months   &%+((£

It is really more like 11 months 1 feb till 25th Dec 2005.  Either that or you have to think of those toddlers as being 23 month olds and they definitely don't look like that.  You can see by the way they place their feet they have just learnt to balance themselves.

www.safeguardingchildren.org.nz/‎

Most babies take their first steps sometime between 9 and 12 months and are walking well by the time they're 14 or 15 months old

http://www.circleofmoms.com/january-2009-babies/is-any-one-elses-11-month-old-walking-438923

is any one elses 11 month old walking?????

Crystal - posted on 12/19/2009 ( 51 moms have responded )

200
i have an 11 month old named hailey and she has been walking for about 1 month now. when she walks around the grocery store everyone says she is too young to be walking. i thought 10 months was a good time to be walking. and its not just step step fall she will walk around the entire grocery store and maybe fall 2 10 times. lol its really cute though. ya so is she really early or are people just forgetting how small they are when they start to walk??????????

[Robittybob1]

So the twins are 3 1/2 months old when Madeleine had her second birthday, that would explain why they are not in that photo.
Madeleine would be 2 years 7 months at the time of the Christmas photo.  In the first poster photo she has shorter hair so it could be her 3rd birthday when the photo was taken.   So it is a three year old being photographed in other words I estimate the photo showing her 1 year younger than she was when she went missing.

[Robittybob1]

It has been pointed out that Richard D Hall covers the first poster photo in some detail but he has offered no explanation for it use. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFk1l_8lxq4 starting at about 6:00 minutes into the video.
He has some good points and I think our study has confirmed some of it.
1. The "first" photo RDH states is more than a year out of date (confirmed).
2. The second photo is taken at 2:29 PM on thursday.  He does not accept this and neither do I.  He reckons it was earlier in the week yet I tend to think it was just earlier in the day 12:29 PM rather than later as Madeleine is booked in at the creche at 2:30 PM so she can't be in two places at once.

3. Richard feels there is a reason they don't provide a more recent photo but never comes up with a proper answer other than there were no others (I think that is what it was).
I have provided an explanation but it has been rejected but I have searched the internet and the question keeps getting asked but never explained.
4.  RDH does not explain why Amy T arrives at the McCanns apartment early enough to see that the window was open and the shutters up.
What I am thinking is if we go and look who the interpreter for AmyT was we will be given a vital clue.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/AMY-ELLEN-TIERNEY.htm
"Amy Tierney

Date: 2007-05-06

Place: P da L

Occupation: Head of the Baby Club and Mini Club

Place of Work: Ocean Club



She comes to the process as a witness.

As she does not understand Portuguese and is of English nationality she is assisted by the interpreter Robert Murat who accompanies her during the questioning."

Note Amy T interpreter this time was Robert Murat.  Had he been allowed to continue as being the main interpreter he would have steered the investigation into finding out the truth, as was said in his conversation with Russell O'Brien.   Why does RM become an arguido?  Who reports him at a late stage?  And haven't I pointed out this fact makes Goncalo doubt that the T9 are telling the truth at all?

[Lace]

OK on page 53 of Madeleine Kate tells us her twins were born. 1st of February 2005, so those Christmas videos with the twins just walking and in nappies would more than likely be Christmas 2005 rather than Christmas 2006 when they would have been nearly two.
 It will depend on the amount of reflection of light.  Low light situations her hair would look dark.

Can I ask you something?   Do you have children?

They wouldn't have been one in December 2005,  so I doubt they would have been walking.  Plus,  children don't usually come out of nappies until they are over two.

You and Jassi disputed what I said about the first photo that the Police were given.   I said if she wasn't pulling a face the photo would look almost identical to the one of Madeleine in the red dress which was taken Christmas 2006.

You then asked if the twins were walking in the video Christmas 2006,   I sent you a video of Madeleine opening her presents on her last Chrsitmas 2006,  you can clearly see the twins walking.

Then you said the video didn't show Madeleine in the red dress.    Well there is no video showing Madeleine feeding a chocolate lollipop to Amelie,  the McCann's didn't release it.   I sent you a newspaper story about Madeleine's last Christmas where it clearly says,  Madeleine feeding Amelie a chocolate lollipop wearing a red dress,  it shows a photo of her.

Now if that doesn't clear everything up for you,  then sorry I can't help.

Madeleine was wearing the red dress Christmas 2006,  the twins were walking,  and if you compare the photo of Madeleine in the red dress to the first photo given to the police you will see it was taken around about the same time.

[Robittybob1]

Can I ask you something?   Do you have children?

They wouldn't have been one in December 2005,  so I doubt they would have been walking.  Plus,  children don't usually come out of nappies until they are over two.

You and Jassi disputed what I said about the first photo that the Police were given.   I said if she wasn't pulling a face the photo would look almost identical to the one of Madeleine in the red dress which was taken Christmas 2006.

You then asked if the twins were walking in the video Christmas 2006,   I sent you a video of Madeleine opening her presents on her last Chrsitmas 2006,  you can clearly see the twins walking.

Then you said the video didn't show Madeleine in the red dress.    Well there is no video showing Madeleine feeding a chocolate lollipop to Amelie,  the McCann's didn't release it.   I sent you a newspaper story about Madeleine's last Christmas where it clearly says,  Madeleine feeding Amelie a chocolate lollipop wearing a red dress,  it shows a photo of her.

Now if that doesn't clear everything up for you,  then sorry I can't help.

Madeleine was wearing the red dress Christmas 2006,  the twins were walking,  and if you compare the photo of Madeleine in the red dress to the first photo given to the police you will see it was taken around about the same time.

I see you have tried to clear this up but to follow your argument I'd need links so I can check it out for in the attempt to find what you are talking about I just get confused.

Yes I have had kids but many years ago. I have got a little rusty on it but my friend looked at the videos and agreed it was possible.
Put links to your facts so I can follow your argument please.

[Robittybob1]

You are saying this is christmas 2006 therefore the kids wearing their other clothes was the year before.

So all we are disputing is how much before Christmas 2006 was the first poster photo taken?  Was it on her 3rd birthday?  There is no easy way to date it.