She never thought of the kitchen though;
In the kitchen were cutting elements used to prepare the meals and which were not put out of sight.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
Neither parent noticed the danger of children getting onto that balcony, it seems.
She never thought of the kitchen though;Unless she had a serious medical condition or was unusual in the extreme, Madeleine was a metre or slightly more tall.
In the kitchen were cutting elements used to prepare the meals and which were not put out of sight.
Not a lot of danger with the cutting elements which were not put out of sight.
Madeleine was 90cm tall, with her eyes approx set approx 2" (5cm) down so they were roughly 85cm off the ground.
Standard worktops are 36" high in the UK. Probably virtually the same all over Europe.
36" = 91.44cm.
Madeleine wasn't tall enough to see the cutting elements ... There would be no interest in anything she couldn't see.
Unless she had a serious medical condition or was unusual in the extreme, Madeleine was a metre or slightly more tall.
Source RCPCH - Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health - UK girls aged 4.
Our kitchen worktops are 89cm, and fittings are a dishwasher and a washing machine/tumble dryer. Unless 5A's washing machine was a non-standard size, it should have a worktop at around 89cm.
Madeleine was NOT four . She was three. A fairer way to estimate her likely height would have been to take an average of heights for three year old and four year olds and taken the averageI know Madeleine went into the files as 90cm. But it does not make it a fact.
Madeleine was not thought to be as tall as you are saying. See below, from the Official Files
She was thought to be 90 cm tall
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm
PRESENT Family Name : McCANN
FAMILY NAME AT BIRTH : McCANN
Forenames : Madeleine Beth
Sex : F
DATE AND Place OF Birth: 12th May 2003 - Leicester, United Kingdom
Also known as Maddie.
OTHER DATES OF BIRTH USED : N/A
FATHER'S FAMILY NAME AND FORENAMES: McCann Gerald Patrick.
MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME AND FORENAMES : HEALY Kate Marie
IDENTITY : CONFIRMED
NATIONALITY : BRITISH (CONFIRMED)
IDENTITY DOCUMENTS - BRITISH PASSPORT No 45XXXXXXX, issued on 4th August 2003 (UNITED KINGDOM) (Valid until 4th August 2008)
Occupation : N/A
Language Spoken : English
MARITAL STATUS : N/A
DESCRIPTION:
HEIGHT : 90 cms
HAIR : Blond
EYE: Green/Blue
BUILD : Slim
DISTINGUISHING MARKS AND CHARACTERISTICS :
Left Eye : Blue and Green colour
Right Eye : Green colour with a Brown spot in Retina
Small brown mark on Left Leg Calf.
Teeth : EUA
Her eyes would be 5 cm, or more, from the top of her head at 85 cm max from the floor
So she would be unable to see anything on the worktop of a kitchen above 85cm. height.
Standard heights for worktops.
My bog standard kitchen has a worktop height of 90cm. All the appliances are integrated.
There are screwed legs on most kitchen units to adjust for floor uneveness and minimally adjust height. But the standard height for cookers is 90cm so a good fitter will try and adjust the feet to make the kitchen unit height match the cooker and other appliance heights.
http://www.argos.co.uk/product/2768474 New World Cooker
I think you will find that most kitchen counters are about 90m cm high to match the appliances.
I repeat,
Madeleine was too short. She could NOT see any cutting implements on the worktops, so she would have had no interest in them.
No danger there.
I know Madeleine went into the files as 90cm. But it does not make it a fact.
From memory, Madeleine went into the files as 90cm first on Gerry's 4 May 2007 statement. Then in Kate's 4 May 2007 statement. And then in the part you have quoted above.
And 90cm went out on her 'missing' poster.
So 90cm it was, until a part of the files requested that an identical pair of M&S pyjamas be tested by the INML and noted in the description that they were sized for someone of 97cm. That set my alarm bells ringing.
I was interested in whether Madeleine could be responsible for the raised shutter and open window. With the files establishing the window ledge height at 92cm and a 90cm tall Madeleine, it seemed highly improbable.
But those pyjamas were labelled 97cm and were due to be replaced by new ones when Madeleine turned 4, according to M&S age ranges. That extra 7cm prompted me to look up information on the height and weight of UK girls on their 4th birthday, which was only a few days away for Madeleine. 12 May 2007 from your post.
And according to the RCPCH - Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health - UK girls aged 4. If Madeleine was small for her age - out of every 4 UK girls aged 4 she was smaller than 3 of them - then she would have been 1m tall. If she was average it only goes up to 1.02m.
But at 90cm tall it is so runty that the RCPCH says such children should be assessed to see if they have medical problems.
Promote 90cm if you wish Sadie, but that would imply that both McCann parents, as doctors, were negligent in their child's healthcare. I can see nothing whatsoever to support this. I prefer to believe the RCPCH data.
Madeleine was tall enough and heavy enough (source RCPCH) to open the shutter and the window. It does not mean she did. It means she had the physical capability.
Madeleine was tall enough to see over the kitchen worktop, whether it was my kitchen at 89cm or yours at 90cm. It matters not a jot.
Madeleine was tall enough and heavy enough to get the unlocked patio doors open. Again, this does not mean that is what happened.
You think !
I prefer the parents assessment and the official files on this one.
As for the pyjama size. Crikey, my kids almost drowned in theirs when they were new. They always had to have ankle close cuffed ones or else they would have been tripping over them.
I think from all the evidence, we can fairly safely estimate Madeleines eye level as about 65 cm above the floor.
Non integrated Kitchen units match the height of standard cookers etc and the worktops are pretty close to 90cm above the floor
Madeleine could NOT see what was on the counter. She could not see the cutting implements, so they were no danger
You think !If one of the more senior mods on the forum wish to chop this, it is fine by me. Equally, if the powers that be wish to split this off onto another topic, so be it.
I prefer the parents assessment and the official files on this one.
As for the pyjama size. Crikey, my kids almost drowned in theirs when they were new. They always had to have ankle close cuffed ones or else they would have been tripping over them.
I think from all the evidence, we can fairly safely estimate Madeleines eye level as about [65cm<<<Sorry!] 85 cm above the floor.
Non integrated Kitchen units match the height of standard cookers etc and the worktops are pretty close to 90cm above the floor
Madeleine could NOT see what was on the counter. She could not see the cutting implements, so they were no danger
You think !
I prefer the parents assessment and the official files on this one.
As for the pyjama size. Crikey, my kids almost drowned in theirs when they were new. They always had to have ankle close cuffed ones or else they would have been tripping over them.
I think from all the evidence, we can fairly safely estimate Madeleines eye level as about [65cm<<<Sorry!] 85 cm above the floor.
Non integrated Kitchen units match the height of standard cookers etc and the worktops are pretty close to 90cm above the floor
Madeleine could NOT see what was on the counter. She could not see the cutting implements, so they were no danger
An interesting but erroneous proposition.care to elaborate ?
The logical extension of that proposition has all sorts of manifestly untrue implications.
If one of the more senior mods on the forum wish to chop this, it is fine by me. Equally, if the powers that be wish to split this off onto another topic, so be it.
I do not prefer the parent's assessment over that of the RCPCH. Parents don't get paid to work out normal and abnormal child sizes. The RCPCH does - that's why it is there.
Neither Kate nor Gerry stated that Madeleine had been measured recently. This leaves estimation.
"How tall is Madeleine?" Answer "About 3 feet."
"No, we need it in metric, how tall is Madeleine?" Answer "I don't know. How tall is 3ft in metric units?"
"Let me see. 36 inches by 2.5 cm per inch. That would make her 90cm tall. Was she 90cm tall?" Answer "Yeah, I think so, she was probably about 90cm tall."
Speculation of course, but the challenges of the M&S pyjama size and the RCPCH data won't go away.
Why you are mentioning new pyjamas is beyond me. M&S thought Madeleine should have gone into a larger set on her 4th birthday. One's bigger than those intended for a child of 97cm. The RCPCH agrees.
People often buy new clothes when they go away. Pjays included.She didn't have new pyjamas. She had one's for 2-3 year olds i.e. replace at age 4.
She didn't have new pyjamas. She had one's for 2-3 year olds i.e. replace at age 4.Now you mention it, I remember it being said that she wore pyjamas for a 2-3 year old.
The twins had newish pyjamas, for those aged 2 to 3. Sean's were for a child of 98cm, so I guess his pyjamas were baggy.
Now you mention it, I remember it being said that she wore pyjamas for a 2-3 year old.I KNOW that she wore pyjamas for a 2-3 year old. She had pyjamas appropriate to a child who would not reach 4 until the 12 May 2007, as per your post.
Do you still think she was over 90cm tall?
care to elaborate ?
I KNOW that she wore pyjamas for a 2-3 year old. She had pyjamas appropriate to a child who would not reach 4 until the 12 May 2007, as per your post.
She had 9 days to go before she hit her 4th birthday.
And yes, she was over 90cm tall according to both the pyjama makers and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Unless she needed to be checked for a significant medical condition.
You think !
I prefer the parents assessment and the official files on this one.
As for the pyjama size. Crikey, my kids almost drowned in theirs when they were new. They always had to have ankle close cuffed ones or else they would have been tripping over them.
I think from all the evidence, we can fairly safely estimate Madeleines eye level as about [65cm<<<Sorry!] 85 cm above the floor.
Non integrated Kitchen units match the height of standard cookers etc and the worktops are pretty close to 90cm above the floor
Madeleine could NOT see what was on the counter. She could not see the cutting implements, so they were no danger
Have you ever heard of tip toes.Even on tip toes, I doubt she would see on to the counter ... and why should she tip toe if she didn't know anything was there ?
You think !Shining in Luz said "Madeleine was tall enough and heavy enough (source RCPCH) to open the shutter and the window. It does not mean she did. It means she had the physical capability."
I prefer the parents assessment and the official files on this one.
As for the pyjama size. Crikey, my kids almost drowned in theirs when they were new. They always had to have ankle close cuffed ones or else they would have been tripping over them.
I think from all the evidence, we can fairly safely estimate Madeleines eye level as about [65cm<<<Sorry!] 85 cm above the floor.
Non integrated Kitchen units match the height of standard cookers etc and the worktops are pretty close to 90cm above the floor
Madeleine could NOT see what was on the counter. She could not see the cutting implements, so they were no danger
Shining in Luz said "Madeleine was tall enough and heavy enough (source RCPCH) to open the shutter and the window. It does not mean she did. It means she had the physical capability."How does Shining know?
Does any one know how possible this was?
Could Madeleine open the shutters herself?
How does Shining know?I found one quote that made it sound like those metal shutters were dangerous and difficult to use. For there were ways to release the locking mechanism and reapplying the lock otherwise it could just fall down rapidly.
I think he was using a US weight chart and US children are BIG
Also in the early days there was much talk in forum land that Madeleine was rather small for her age. Some linked it to her eye defect. Dunno if there is any truth in this
Kate thought that she was 90cm tall [as against 100cm tall average IIRC.] She is fine boned, somewhat like her Mum, re limbs ... but has a heavier looking trunk than her Mum IMO
His workmate Mario is helpful.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIO_MOREIRA.htm
When you read what Mario says I'd say it is unlikely Madeleine operated the shutters on her own. " When asked, he said that the damage to the blinds was centred on the pull-handle, limiting their opening. He says that this kind of damage is quite frequent, given the fact of the need for some initial force to raise the shutter, sometimes associated with a lack of knowledge of the mechanism on the part of some of the tourists, who keep applying force, contrary to what is required, and which results in the violent destruction of the respective handles." They were difficult to operate.
In fact when you think about it sounds possible that the pull chord could become a health and safety issue. Could the shutter pull handle cause strangulation in the process of "violent destruction of the respective handles"?
Sounds unlikely for a little girl to attempt this.
The mechanism is pretty easy to use. To open the shutter all you do is pull the cord down.That simple action hasn't actually raised the shutters.
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/fl/4941423621_a72f26c2a5_z.jpg)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/fl/4941422687_8de75de17e_z.jpg)
Madeleine’s Height.
(https://static2.stuff.co.nz/1381347320/666/9265666.jpg)
(http://blog.toysrus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Girl-coming-out-of-playhouse.jpg)
http://images.step2.com/media/pdfs/766600_info.pdf (http://images.step2.com/media/pdfs/766600_info.pdf)
First Picture Madeleine
Second Picture General Picture of Playhouse
Third Link Manufacturers Specification (different door design but appears to be same house)
From information in PDF
Lowest Point - 94.6
Calculated Height of Door 120cm (10% margin of error takes that to 108cm)
From first picture Madeleine just short of Door Height.
Madeleine being 100cm tall is a low estimate based on this evidence.
Did you notice the step under the door....any calculation would depend on whether Maddie was or was not standing on the step... also was Maddie stepping so her heel was off the ground........too many variables for an accurate assessment
Already given you 20cm, how much more do you want?so she could be 1.20.......as I said too many variables for an accurate estimate
Madeleine’s Height.
(https://static2.stuff.co.nz/1381347320/666/9265666.jpg)
(http://blog.toysrus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Girl-coming-out-of-playhouse.jpg)
http://images.step2.com/media/pdfs/766600_info.pdf (http://images.step2.com/media/pdfs/766600_info.pdf)
First Picture Madeleine
Second Picture General Picture of Playhouse
Third Link Manufacturers Specification (different door design but appears to be same house)
From information in PDF
Lowest Point - 94.6
Calculated Height of Door 120cm (10% margin of error takes that to 108cm)
From first picture Madeleine just short of Door Height.
Madeleine being 100cm tall is a low estimate based on this evidence.
is this your opinion or are you stating it as fact
Based on the evidence I have presented, a fact.
M & S size guide;
Girls Outfits
Age (years) 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6
Height 90-98 98 -104 104-110 110-116
http://www.marksandspencer.com/c/size-guides?espotId=PDP-SG_SG-GWOUTFITS
M & S size guide;
Girls Outfits
Age (years) 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6
Height 90-98 98 -104 104-110 110-116
http://www.marksandspencer.com/c/size-guides?espotId=PDP-SG_SG-GWOUTFITS
Madeleine’s Height.Who is the manufacturer slarti? Do they specify all the dimensions?
(https://static2.stuff.co.nz/1381347320/666/9265666.jpg)
(http://blog.toysrus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Girl-coming-out-of-playhouse.jpg)
http://images.step2.com/media/pdfs/766600_info.pdf (http://images.step2.com/media/pdfs/766600_info.pdf)
First Picture Madeleine
Second Picture General Picture of Playhouse
Third Link Manufacturers Specification (different door design but appears to be same house)
From information in PDF
Lowest Point - 94.6
Calculated Height of Door 120cm (10% margin of error takes that to 108cm)
From first picture Madeleine just short of Door Height.
Madeleine being 100cm tall is a low estimate based on this evidence.
Only a rough guide to heights.
I've taken grand daughters shopping and often have to buy a size larger than their age group, and even occasionally a side smaller for the same child.
Who is the manufacturer slarti? Do they specify all the dimensions?
I have done a search on the internet and I cant find any dimensions. I would be grateful for a cite please
TY
Madeleine’s Height.
(https://static2.stuff.co.nz/1381347320/666/9265666.jpg)
(http://blog.toysrus.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Girl-coming-out-of-playhouse.jpg)
http://images.step2.com/media/pdfs/766600_info.pdf (http://images.step2.com/media/pdfs/766600_info.pdf)
First Picture Madeleine
Second Picture General Picture of Playhouse
Third Link Manufacturers Specification (different door design but appears to be same house)
From information in PDF
Lowest Point - 94.6
Calculated Height of Door 120cm (10% margin of error takes that to 108cm)
From first picture Madeleine just short of Door Height.
Madeleine being 100cm tall is a low estimate based on this evidence.
For roughing in I'd go with 1100mm ffl to soffit of arch......... 8(>((
That would be very rough and in favour of your argument.
i have not set it out on a drawing board but I have used chamfered scale rule and dividers. I have trieed not to err on either side.
From the GROUND to the soffit of the arch (underside of the keystone), I have made it, as near as I can say, approx 1 metre (100 cm). I have found the step to be about 4 cm and Madeleines sandal soles about 1 cm thick.
Therefore Madeleine was fitting in a space of 95.5 cm height. It was probably designed to that nice rouind figure originally. She was short of the arch so her height was less than that
I have studied the image and noticed that Madeleines eyes are level with certian arch stones and measured that height .
The top of her head is level with other arch stones and I have measured that height too.
When taking those sandals into account, I found that Madeleine measured
835cm to her eyes
and
935 cm overall
I have not drawn this on a drawing board with parallel motion or click head, so not as accurate as I would have wished, but I have endeavoured to be fair to both sides.
This means that Madeleine was too short to see on to the kitchen counters, but she was a little taller, it seems, than Kate thought. However, she was well short of the 100cm(+) measurements that some managed to manufacture on here
Also IIRC the height that Amaral fixed for her. << please correct me if I have Amarals height assessment wrong
The only argument I have is:Well you got it wrong.
How far from ffl to soffit of door arch?. Estimate from dimensions given in data sheet.
Naff all to do with any kids.
Gives a door approximately 350 wide with an arch that looks to be a semi circle; the lowest internal dimension is approx 950 above ffl which from the photo of the front elevation looks to be the approximate tangent point of the arch plus 350/2 = 1125mm.
Easy old stuff without any reference to kids.
When I did metrology we didn't use kids as a unit of measurement.... 8(>((
That would be very rough and in favour of your argument.
i have not set it out on a drawing board but I have used chamfered scale rule and dividers. I have trieed not to err on either side.
From the GROUND to the soffit of the arch (underside of the keystone), I have measured it, as near as I can say, as approx 1 metre (100 cm). I have found the step to be about 4 cm and Madeleines sandal soles about 1 cm thick.
Therefore Madeleine was fitting in a space of 95 cm height. It was probably designed to that nice round figure originally. She was short of the arch so her height was less than that
I have studied the image and noticed that Madeleines eyes are level with certian arch stones and measured that height .
The top of her head is level with other arch stones and I have measured that height too.
When taking those sandals into account, I found that Madeleine measured
835cm to her eyes
and
935 cm overall
I have not drawn this on a drawing board with parallel motion or click head, so not as accurate as I would have wished, but I have endeavoured to be fair to both sides.
This means that Madeleine was too short to see on to the kitchen counters, but she was a little taller, it seems, than Kate thought. However, she was well short of the 100cm(+) measurements that some managed to manufacture on here
Also IIRC the height that Amaral fixed for her of 100cm. << please correct me if I have Amarals height assessment wrong
I would say abouy half gerry's height , so about 3 foot. What's that in cm?
I would say abouy half gerry's height , so about 3 foot. What's that in cm?
Approx 90cm
But you cant just judge this as you are. It is complex because of perspective.
S***s feet are further back and on a higher plane than Gerrys. This means that he is further behind Gerry. If you were to get dividers and measure him from average foot placement to head he would be way smaller than half Gerry.
but then he is also looking smaller because of perspective and it would be very complex to try and work out exactly what this perspective did to the measurements.
Having spent most of my life studying life drawing and reached a certain standar in it where I work happilyb alongside Art BA's and MA's, I have an educated eye. This educated eye tells me that despite perspective, S*** in this picture is noticeably smaller than half Gerry.
Anyway, what has this to do with it? S*** is a boy, they usually are taller than girls.
In any case children in the same family can vary considerably in height at the same ages ... and in the early days there was much talk in forumland that Madeleine s height was shorter than usual. It was speculated that it was something allied to her eye condition. Dunno if the later is correct or not, but it was speculated that this was the case at that time.
If you are still arguing about Madeleines height, why dont you find someone amongst your number who is an experienced and accurate draftsperson ... and get them to check my measurements. They must take a large scale print off of the play house, then take note of the lowest interior height of the playhouse and mark that in the right place.
Using that as a datum and using a scale rule, then divide the vertical space up into 10 cm sections. The rest is pretty obvious, but in order to be accurate they must take into account the height of the step and the thickness of Madeleines heels and soles.
if done accurately their measuirements should come out near mine
The door on one of their other models is 45.5” or 115.5cm.
How does Shining know?RCPCH = Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.
I think he was using a US weight chart and US children are BIG
Also in the early days there was much talk in forum land that Madeleine was rather small for her age. Some linked it to her eye defect. Dunno if there is any truth in this
Kate thought that she was 90cm tall [as against 100cm tall average IIRC.] She is fine boned, somewhat like her Mum, re limbs ... but has a heavier looking trunk than her Mum IMO