English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Therefore, it would be easy for a theoretical abductor, to have placed her in a buggy and pass her off as a 2 year old, when the world has been looking for a 4 year old.
How come this information isnt more prominent in the media?

2007-09-04 10:42:03 · 34 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events Current Events

ok, for those of you who are small of brain, the point is that in my (and others) mind's eye, when you hear that a 4 year old is missing (it was a week before her 4th birthday when she went missing) if you know enough about children and their development, you know what you envisage, a particular sized and height of child.
Because Madeline was so small, she will have appeared as if she was the height of a 2 yr, 5mnth old child (using the centile charts that the NHS and WHO use), therefore, any sightings of her, would be enanced by the knowledge of her exact appearance. I find it strange that such an important fact about a missing child is not more widely known.
17 pdr, its on the PJs missing child website.

2007-09-04 11:03:32 · update #1

marge and 17pdr, it doesnt matter why shes short, the fact that she is, means we should have known so that we look for a particular size kid. Anyway, at a guess, i think it may be because she was born from IVF or she may have been prem. Mum is very slight, so she obviously takes after that side of the family.

2007-09-04 11:24:19 · update #2

loulou - coloboma can be associated with learning disabilities but i dont think the family confirmed whether this was the case or not with her

2007-09-04 11:26:03 · update #3

ok, once and for all, just so everyone knows, at 4 years old and 90cm tall, Madeline will have been referred to a specialist (if there wasnt already some attention given to it) to investigate why she had delayed growth. She is off the scale in terms of height, any health visitor will tell you this. Its likely that its related to the Coloboma and therefore no further investigation would be necessary. My point is not about whether she is whatever height she is, its that it was not something that was highly promoted enough to make people aware that she is much smaller than a normal 4 year old. End of.

2007-09-05 03:50:23 · update #4

34 answers

That's exactly what I want to know. Could it be that the McCanns didn't like having a disabled child who they have admitted could be difficult at times and they tried to block it out ? I don't know why these two didn't publicise this very important piece of info right from day one. Why do they keep lying and hiding the truth. How can people all around the world be expected to keep an eye open for Maddy when the parents aren't being straight with everyone ?
EDIT. The height of Maddy which has been recorded on the PJ files is 90cms . This is the height of a two and a half year old. Why in God's name weren't we told this info ? They were quick to tell us about her Coloboma (eye) but this is equally as important ! What else are they hiding ?

2007-09-04 10:52:40 · answer #1 · answered by little weed 6 · 16 15

The information has been available on the findmadeleine.com site all along - it's not like you've uncovered new information is it?

90cms isn't particularly short for her age, it's 10cms less than the average 4 year old and 5cms taller than the average 2 year old. However, averages are exactly that, average, and so include variations above and below the norm and, anyway, I doubt whether most people could easily geuss whether a child was 85, 90 or 100cms at a glance and less easily if the child was sitting in a buggy or at a table.

But, here's the thing, 4 year olds are a different shape to 2 year olds. 2 year olds are still quite chubby with sticky out tummies and large heads, while 4 year olds are slimmer and more 'adult' proportions.

Also 4 year olds have more communication skills than 2 year olds, at 2 a child might string together the occasional sentence, but at 4 they are able to say 'I've had the best day ever'.

So, all in all, better to describe Madeliene as what she is 'a four year old girl'.

2007-09-05 00:13:05 · answer #2 · answered by Skidoo 7 · 4 2

That is 3 ft high.

where are the average 2 yr olds 3 feet high? Germany? USA?

Not British kids.

I think the main distiguishing mark for Madeleine is the smudged pupil & she does look ever so much like her mum.

I look at all female children, fair skin, pretty & concentrate on their eyes. As it has been pointed out before, her hair could be cut, dyed or even shaved off by now.

I have seen children under 3 ft at age 4 and over 3ft at age 3.

I don't think you have a point here at all.
Sorry.

By the way, where did you get your "averages" from?

Do you know how averages are calculated?

2007-09-05 03:38:51 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

i replaced into in basic terms 5' while i replaced into 11 and have in basic terms grown 3 inches because of the fact then and that i'm just about 17 so no enormous each physique is diverse (besides tall adult males like short ladies my bf is 6'4'') lol.

2016-10-03 23:45:53 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Are you for real or this this just a sick joke? Quick call the CIA, FBI, Scotland Yard, Tubby/Spud (or whatever your name is) Has discovered the key to the case. She (Madeleine) is 2 inches shorter that average!!!!!!!!!!, OMG how could the police have missed this?
May I suggest that before attempting to use words of more than one syllable, you sort your shockingly poor grammar out. Whilst I appreciate, after reading your question, that English is obviously not your first language, you would look far less Stupid if you stuck to simple phrases that you understand.
As for being 'Small of brain' what exactly are you attempting to imply? I cannot fathom your grammar.
I could help you with your English, if you wish to email me, I will attempt to re-phrase your question in correct English (when I have the time.). Alas, there are too many mistakes to correct it here.

2007-09-04 23:16:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6 4

This has been brought up before. She does seem a rather small child. I have seen video footage of Madeleine, and she seems very subdued and for a small child on holiday that in itself is unusual. I just regret this whole business has STILL not been brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

2007-09-04 21:38:50 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4 3

Yes, I agree with you. This should have been highly publicised when alerting people to look for Madeleine. Most people are on the look out for an 4 year old child, so would have been more difficult to spot.

2007-09-04 12:08:00 · answer #7 · answered by puffcandy007 3 · 4 4

Is an average height for a 2 year old 90cm (3 feet)?

2007-09-04 11:03:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 7 5

I totally agree and understand how easy it could have been my two youngest daughters have microphalacey and are very tiny for their ages my 6 yr old wears 18 months old and my 9 year old 5/6 yrs the public should have been told this at the very start.

2007-09-04 11:54:47 · answer #9 · answered by spuddylicious 3 · 6 5

I really wish the issue of whether Madeleine was or wasnt handicapped was futher investigated.

And no its not outrageous to suggest that, if she wasnt handicapped then fine! prove it, and we move on. Otherwise it could prove an important piece of the puzzle that yet again would be overlooked because to ask such a thing is politically incorrect.

2007-09-04 11:56:33 · answer #10 · answered by dave s 2 · 9 6

Puddy - Have you got a source ?

Little Weed - is there evidence of disability (a source) ?

Edit: Ok found a source here, 90cm
http://findmadeleine.blogspot.com/2007/05/photos-of-madeleine.html

Note though, the twins are 2 y/o and they are quite a bit shorter than Madeleine (see pic of the three via my sorce) is it that they are all short ?

2007-09-04 10:57:36 · answer #11 · answered by 17pdr 4 · 7 5

fedest.com, questions and answers