Maddie - what was wrong with her?

by **tigger** 28.02.12 14:10

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Right: I came across this courtesy of youtube spying on my preferences: opera and Maddie!

I'm listing the queries I have about the many faces of Maddie. At:
.27 The Everton shirt photo - her head is too far to the left on the neck - photoshopped
.41 Eye make up
.50 Looks ill
1.12 Looks ill
1.15 Face looks lopsided - ill
1.40 ill
1.47 ill
1.52 photoshopped Gerry and picture frame behind him are added at a later date.
2.13 ill
3.00 looks very sad to me
3.04 airport? Long hair - just before PdL?
3.07 isn't Maddie IMO. Blonder hair, very confident smile.
3.34 Hair seems highlighted - she is taking no notice at all of the twins
4.11 Heavy mascara?
4.17 ill?

Just by chance that these black and white snaps and clips are just the ones that always have bothered me. Especially the one at .50 -
I'd really like to hear opinion on this. But whatever is going on here, none of these are remotely like the poster girl.
I haven't bothered to note all the occasions where the coloboma has been added.

by **tigger** 29.02.12 7:15

Ribisl suggested in the closed topic to start one on this subject.

We would have to look at:
How she is described by people who did not know her.
How she is described by people who did know her.
What the reason for the substitution might be.
Why the risk of a substitution was worth it.

Argument for:
Based on character alone.

Maddie was described by some of the staff at the creche as a shy and quiet child.

This is in complete contrast with evidence from the family and her parents.
Grandmother: that girl was a screamer.
Kate: she'll be giving her tuppence worth.

Video - the last video in the hallway (it's also on the topic Maddie what was wrong with her?) shows her running op and down the hall.
In this video there are many shots that do not show a healthy child imo. The answers lies with Maddie as she really was imo. Not in the fairy tale spun by TM.

Kate's book: she needed constant attention.

by Genbug 29.02.12 9:00

Tigger, it's a difficult one based on character description. While I agree that there have been a huge range of adjectives to describe Madeleine, a lot of them very contradictory, I think it all comes down to how a person interacts with a child. I believe that even her two nursery school teachers give a slightly different description of her, one saying she was average, the other saying she was above average (will check that out).

I could tell you that my grandchildren were the most beautiful, clever and well behaved children that ever walked the earth. And I honestly believe that. Okay, the boy may not always do as he is told the first time - or the second time, but I wouldn't tell you that if I were describing him!

The three year old girl is a delight, outgoing and happy around us. However, if we take her out she is painfully shy around strangers and won't even look at them.

I'm sure their mother would disagree with most of what I have just written. Their father would give a different description, as would their respective nursery and school teachers. The fact is that three year old children usually have a huge range of characteristics and each person that interacts with them will see a different one. I do agree though that Madeleine seems to have more than her fair share!

by **tigger** 29.02.12 9:50

Genbug, I just thought to divide into:
1.character
2.appearance (how others described her compared to the images we have of her)
3.actions (e.g. Maddie loved water - the girl on the beach was frightened of water according to the nanny)
4.benefits of having a sub
5.necessity of having a sub (this is important - the less leaks or complications the better, I have an idea was it was necessary)

I started this topic because I saw a suggestion by Aiyoyo that it would be a good idea to separate it from the Creche topic. I admit that a sub is a radical idea, but this case is unique in many respects. Initially I could not believe in premeditation, but the evidence is strongly pointing in that direction.

by rainbow-fairy 29.02.12 9:59

Morning!
I think one thing that really is indicative of a 'sub' is the size given for Maddie, and a 'younger' photo released. IMO, the 'sub' was younger and smaller hence the need to 'mini-fy' Madeleine...

by russiandoll 29.02.12 10:13

to have a separate topic on this, as it is so controversial and points to something very radical having happened with a certain amount of premeditation and takes things to such a different level.

by Guest 29.02.12 10:54

Hi tigger, I have merged the two topics as you requested thumbsup

by aiyoyo 29.02.12 13:41

tigger wrote:Ribisl suggested in the closed topic to start one on this subject.

We would have to look at:
How she is described by people who did not know her.
How she is described by people who did know her.
What the reason for the substitution might be.
Why the risk of a substitution was worth it.

Argument for:
Based on character alone.

Maddie was described by some of the staff at the creche as a shy and quiet child.

This is in complete contrast with evidence from the family and her parents.
Grandmother: that girl was a screamer.
Kate: she'll be giving her tuppence worth.

Video - the last video in the hallway (it's also on the topic Maddie what was wrong with her?) shows her running op and down the hall.
In this video there are many shots that do not show a healthy child imo. The answers lies with Maddie as she really was imo. Not in the fairy tale spun by TM.

Kate's book: she needed constant attention.

IMO, her medical records were withheld for a reason. She probably was born with a health condition such as autism or aspergers syndrome. That would explain her shy behavior with strangers, and her disruptive behavior which kate found hard to handle, especially if kate didnt get any help or support from gerry in the share of care.

In the home video Maddie certainly looked that way to me - rounding about in a giddy manner without regard to anything else. It didnt matter whether anyone is playing with her or not - she was doing her own fixated thing - all typical symptoms of sufferer of medical condition as mentioned. Also in one of her photos where she sucked in her lower lip and looked uncertain as if fearful, that's another symptom displayed by sufferer.

It might help if all photos of her are posted up for study and comments.

by russiandoll 29.02.12 13:53

I could never understand the withholding of these, as the procedures set out in UK police documents clearly state that when an abduction is reported all info relating to the victim esp if vulnerable is hugely important and mentions medical records on a long list of items needed to build a picture....so lets hope SY have demanded the family's records. I also believe Maddie looked like a not very well little girl at times, esp around the eyes.

by **tigger** 29.02.12 14:11

Aiyoyo and RD, please play the video at the top of the topic now that Candyfloss has merged both topics. I really think things make a lot more sense if there was something wrong with Maddie that would never get better.
At .50 I was quite shocked by the image which was like the unflattering ones of Maddie, but much worse.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

This topic from September is also worth looking at.

by Ribisl 29.02.12 17:05

tigger wrote:Ribisl suggested in the closed topic to start one on this subject.

We would have to look at:
How she is described by people who did not know her.
How she is described by people who did know her.
What the reason for the substitution might be.
Why the risk of a substitution was worth it.

Argument for:
Based on character alone.

Maddie was described by some of the staff at the creche as a shy and quiet child.

This is in complete contrast with evidence from the family and her parents.
Grandmother: that girl was a screamer.
Kate: she'll be giving her tuppence worth.

Video - the last video in the hallway (it's also on the topic Maddie what was wrong with her?) shows her running op and down the hall.
In this video there are many shots that do not show a healthy child imo. The answers lies with Maddie as she really was imo. Not in the fairy tale spun by TM.

Kate's book: she needed constant attention.

Just wanted to say a quick thank you for starting this thread. As I have stated before I am not at all convinced that there was a substitute Madeleine but I would like to see all the evidence available and hear all the arguments that support the case. I am particularly interested in your third point ie why any of you think they needed a substitute.

by dentdelion 29.02.12 18:03

Yes I cannot figure out this either? how could you have a three year old be trained in to the 'plan' eg she would have to answer to name Maddie, greet her parents when they came to collect her etc. It does not add up.

by Guest 29.02.12 18:10

I can appreciate that any suggestion of there being another child passed off for Madeleine will have the pros cackling with glee over their cauldrons.

However, the evidence does suggest that she was no longer around prior to 3rd May and, as a child was still being signed in to the creche, I can't at the moment think of any other alternative.

by russiandoll 29.02.12 18:27

dentdelion wrote:Yes I cannot figure out this either? how could you have a three year old be trained in to the 'plan' eg she would have to answer to name Maddie, greet her parents when they came to collect her etc. It does not add up.

It would be interesting to know how the child in creche greeted Kate McCann in particular, as she says in her book that she loved it when she would pick Maddie up from her nursery in UK and poignantly describes the child running to her and throwing her arms around her as if to claim her as her mother... an expressive, excited greeting.

Yes the sub idea seems far fetched but needs consideration. It will surely be dismissed as a theory eventually if it does not seem plausible given the hard evidence.
One thing I wondered...could they not have given a plausible explanation for Maddie not attending for a few days? They were not obliged to stick to a rigid routine as far as the MW staff were concerned?

by Ribisl 29.02.12 18:30

I wholly agree with genbug's point of view and see little merit in discussing our impressions of Madeleine from various photographs. We won't get anywhere except agreeing to disagree because impressions are totally subjective.

In order to establish whether there was indeed a substitute, I think we need to concentrate on two points:
1. Can we prove that Madeleine was dead prior to her 'disappearance' on 3rd May?
2. Are there reliable witnesses to confirm 'Madeleine' was around on 3rd May?

by rainbow-fairy 29.02.12 19:47

Ribisl wrote:I wholly agree with genbug's point of view and see little merit in discussing our impressions of Madeleine from various photographs. We won't get anywhere except agreeing to disagree because impressions are totally subjective.

In order to establish whether there was indeed a substitute, I think we need to concentrate on two points:
1. Can we prove that Madeleine was dead prior to her 'disappearance' on 3rd May?

No. How can we prove that? We can't prove she died before the 3rd, after the 3rd or even on the 3rd.
2. Are there reliable witnesses to confirm 'Madeleine' was around on 3rd May?

Not many! HiDeHo compiled a list of witnesses who claimed they saw Maddie, but it was proven most were actually mistaken - the cleaner on the Sunday is apparently the most reliable of the lot, however I think a question mark hangs over her evidence too.

That leaves us with the Tapas say-so. After all, how would independent witnesses really know which child was which?

by **tigger** 29.02.12 20:05

As to point one: only circumstantial - very significant activity on the telephone - very unusual for a holiday where they were so 'into' each other that they didn't want to take mobiles or watches to the Tapas Bar.
The activities of third parties such as Murat - the fact that Murat booked in the early morning of the 30th April to fly to Faro.
The fact that Murat and Gerry's phone pings coincide and that both switched their phones off and on at exactly the same time on the ? 2nd May I think (sorry def. pre 3/5) . The later fact that Gerry would not say whether he knew Murat or not.

As to point two: No truly independent witnesses imo. None of the T7 would qualify imo. certainly not David Payne - his account of seeing Madeleine in the evening varies wildly from that of Kate. It is highly suspect. I believe this statement only surfaced after Amaral wanted evidence of Maddie being alive on the 3rd. There are several different versions of it.

As for other witnesses Brigit Wilkins said there were 10 little blond 3 yr olds at the creche and the parents joked about how hard it was to tell them apart. On the fourth of May another guest told the press that Maddie was a small girl with very blond hair.
There simply aren't any reliable witnesses.

It is interesting that the only conversations between the parents and Maddie occur on the 3rd.
The 'why didn't you come when I cried?' which was much changed and Maddie telling her mother in the evening that she 'had the best day ever'. Two conversations reported on the 3rd, none for the rest of the holiday. Two points in the day when she had to have been alive - according to the parents who are the only witnesses.

You may say that the photographic evidence is objective, but the video above does show a child that isn't totally healthy, to put it mildly.
The clip at .50 is very worrying, she looks as if she has hydrocephalus. Her medical records were denied, but must still exist somewhere.

by Guest 29.02.12 20:16

The nanny Catriona Baker claims that she saw Madeleine on the 3rd May.

Presumably she would be considered an independent witness and her testimony is presumably part of the evidence which led Amaral to conclude that Madeleine was still alive on 3rd May.

But of course that depends on (a) whether the girl she saw was actually Madeleine or (b) she was leaned on by the Mccanns to be "helpful". She was one of the individuals asked by the Mccanns to be witnessed as part of the rogatory procedure.
I am not sure if any of us know what the creche check in procedure was in any detail. Did parents bringing their children into the creche sign the sheets in front of the nannies? Or was it much more haphazard than that?

by uppatoffee 29.02.12 20:35

dentdelion wrote:Yes I cannot figure out this either? how could you have a three year old be trained in to the 'plan' eg she would have to answer to name Maddie, greet her parents when they came to collect her etc. It does not add up.

If there was a substitute whose name was Madalene then that would make that a bit easier.

by finch 29.02.12 20:48

Looking at the vid at .23, I always thought that picture was not Madeleine but a young Kate. Although I see the fleck in her eye, these are two different eyes (the right one much smaller). Kate has two different eyes too.

by Guest 29.02.12 20:53

One was identified some time ago and discussed on the original creche thread. When I say " discussed", care was taken not to identify the young girl by giving her surname. But Madalene is her first name. A school friend of Elizabeth Naylor. Kikoraton has done the research on the creche records.

by Guest 29.02.12 21:19

tigger wrote:As to point one: only circumstantial - very significant activity on the telephone - very unusual for a holiday where they were so 'into' each other that they didn't want to take mobiles or watches to the Tapas Bar.
The activities of third parties such as Murat - the fact that Murat booked in the early morning of the 30th April to fly to Faro.
The fact that Murat and Gerry's phone pings coincide and that both switched their phones off and on at exactly the same time on the ? 2nd May I think (sorry def. pre 3/5) . The later fact that Gerry would not say whether he knew Murat or not.

As to point two: No truly independent witnesses imo. None of the T7 would qualify imo. certainly not David Payne - his account of seeing Madeleine in the evening varies wildly from that of Kate. It is highly suspect. I believe this statement only surfaced after Amaral wanted evidence of Maddie being alive on the 3rd. There are several different versions of it.

As for other witnesses Brigit Wilkins said there were [b]10 little blond 3 yr olds at the creche and the parents joked about how hard it was to tell them apart.

On the fourth of May another guest told the press that Maddie was a small girl with very blond hair.
There simply aren't any reliable witnesses. [/b]

It is interesting that the only conversations between the parents and Maddie occur on the 3rd.
The 'why didn't you come when I cried?' which was much changed and Maddie telling her mother in the evening that she 'had the best day ever'. Two conversations reported on the 3rd, none for the rest of the holiday. Two points in the day when she had to have been alive - according to the parents who are the only witnesses.

You may say that the photographic evidence is objective, but the video above does show a child that isn't totally healthy, to put it mildly.
The clip at .50 is very worrying, she looks as if she has hydrocephalus. Her medical records were denied, but must still exist somewhere.

Exactly: the 'Boys' from Brazil: all the same age, all girls, all blondes (from dark-haired parents) all outside theire parents watch for hours on end;

All children of middle aged men married to over the hill professional ladies. Not ONE of them having provided a single picture of having been pregnant.

Question: did the Pharmaceuticals pay for the clone/IVF experiments? Were these carried out In the Netherlands (for free!);

Well put, fellow sleuth: the smell of rodents all over the place. No matter. We'll sort this out.

by rainbow-fairy 29.02.12 22:34

This has been mentioned briefly before, and I remember the poster got in hot water (but I can't remember who it was) for insinuating it was an 'injury'. I don't think its an injury but its clear to see - Amelie. Has anyone else noticed this? To me, it seems she has a hare lip. Kate, with her 'beauty' obsession has not mentioned this in the bewk, has she? But its very obvious in that video and most pics?
I know she mentions that Sean was squashed when born but became prettier. I'm sure I haven't seen Amelie's lip mentioned but I'm certain its there...

by Ribisl 01.03.12 0:11

So there may have been a girl called Madalene at the same creche but why should she be the substitute for Madeleine?
Madeleine may have been sickly or less pretty than some official pictures suggest but that does not imply anything sinister unless she actually died from some illness and there was a deliberate cover up.
Many pictures appear to have been tampered with but that doesn't necessarily mean the official timeline is false, though it certainly becomes rather hazy especially wrt the last picture.

What would have been the point of having a substitute? Was it to persuade us either the death or the disappearance of Madeleine occurred later than when it actually did? If so, why was it necessary? Where is the logic?

How do you train a three year old to act so convincingly so as to fool everybody?

Please bear with me if these points have been gone over before but I am quite new to this forum and I would really like to hear all your arguments again.

by **HiDeHo** 01.03.12 1:48

I am not of the believe that Madeleine was substituted but I do feel there is a possibility that she was mistaken for another child.

I have assembled some images showing the descriptions by different people...It seems odd to me that OC staff, describe her very differently from everyone else.

I have checked ALL the statements of those that say they saw her and EVERY ONE allows for the possibility they were either mistaken and were describing a different child (eg tapas cook who 'saw' Madeleine in the tapas creche every day when Madeleine attended the other creche) OR were not specific about seeing Madeleine (eg Georgina Tennis coach who mentioned Madeleine was among a group of children..but did not specifically say about KNOWING that Madeleine was there)

With the possibility that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week, the true Madeleine's personality, described by the McCanns, friends and relatives does not appear to have been around ANY of the Ocean Club staff!

Keep in mind that 'shy and sensitive' describes Jane Tanners child

Jane Tanner

“And how would you describe Madeleine?”
Reply “Very, she was very lively, a very lively, happy, a happy little girl really. Because,
probably a bit of, we were almost a bit worried how Exxxx and Madeleine would get
on, because Exxxx’s quite shy and sensitive and Madeleine’s very, erm, I don’t know
whether you can call a child vivacious, but, you know, sort of very, erm, outgoing
and. But, I mean, they did, they got on and they had a whale of a time. But, yeah,
very, very lively, chatty, a chatty little girl. I mean, to be honest, I know Madeleine
probably less well than I know Kate and Gerry, because often, with Kate and Gerry,
we saw them, it was like at fortieth birthday parties and that sort of thing. So,
Madeleine herself, I wouldn’t say as, I didn’t know her as a little girl, whereas, you
know, the other children, Millie and the other ones, you know, I saw very regularly”.

Would a shy child necessarily correct an adult if she was called Madeleine and/or how many times a day would they be addressed by their names?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]