The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Page 6 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by Hicks on 25.03.14 18:20

The black and white photo I posted earlier was taken from a website that claims the baby in the picture WAS Madeleine.
I have to go out now but I'll try to find it later.

Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 58

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by MissesWillYa on 25.03.14 18:44

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I agree, Miraflores.

There is no reason why anyone should have to release photos in the public domain of themselves being visibly pregnant.

There are a few "look at me" actresses who think this is a good idea - particularly while unclothed - but I certainly don't!

The puzzle for me is not why Kate didn't release any such photos of herself but why she chose to inflict those ghastly inappropriate photos of Madeleine before the holiday on us, rather than any believable ones while she was there.

I agree with both of you, though I do think most of their photos seem a little strange in some way. I also think it's odd that such inappropriate photos of Madeleine have been shown but not the more pedestrian types of photos, including pregnancy or brand-new baby photos. It seems like those would help them endear themselves to the public more, on a personal level. IMO.

I'm just curious, but what are the NHS guidelines for a post-partum stay in the hospital? How long do women typically remain after the birth? Here in the US, it's very common to go home after one night, or even late on the same day if the baby is born in the early morning. I myself had many complications in both of my births and stayed for several days after each, but that's not usual.

MissesWillYa

Posts : 180
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2013-04-25
Location : On a mountaintop

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by tigger on 25.03.14 19:27

@MissesWillYa wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I agree, Miraflores.

There is no reason why anyone should have to release photos in the public domain of themselves being visibly pregnant.

There are a few "look at me" actresses who think this is a good idea - particularly while unclothed - but I certainly don't!

The puzzle for me is not why Kate didn't release any such photos of herself but why she chose to inflict those ghastly inappropriate photos of Madeleine before the holiday on us, rather than any believable ones while she was there.

I agree with both of you, though I do think most of their photos seem a little strange in some way. I also think it's odd that such inappropriate photos of Madeleine have been shown but not the more pedestrian types of photos, including pregnancy or brand-new baby photos. It seems like those would help them endear themselves to the public more, on a personal level. IMO.

I'm just curious, but what are the NHS guidelines for a post-partum stay in the hospital? How long do women typically remain after the birth? Here in the US, it's very common to go home after one night, or even late on the same day if the baby is born in the early morning. I myself had many complications in both of my births and stayed for several days after each, but that's not usual.

The logical photograph to include in the book Madeleine is imo one of the proud parents with their first baby. Not necessarily just after the birth, but soon afterwards. properly posed.

Another photo one might expect is the christening which good catholics should do within weeks or at least months.
An occasion for a precious gown, family and friends dressed up, a party afterwards.

NOT the weird photo of Kate with a glass of wine and a baby on her hip seen from some distance.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by Hicks on 25.03.14 20:40

@MissesWillYa wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I agree, Miraflores.

There is no reason why anyone should have to release photos in the public domain of themselves being visibly pregnant.

There are a few "look at me" actresses who think this is a good idea - particularly while unclothed - but I certainly don't!

The puzzle for me is not why Kate didn't release any such photos of herself but why she chose to inflict those ghastly inappropriate photos of Madeleine before the holiday on us, rather than any believable ones while she was there.

I agree with both of you, though I do think most of their photos seem a little strange in some way. I also think it's odd that such inappropriate photos of Madeleine have been shown but not the more pedestrian types of photos, including pregnancy or brand-new baby photos. It seems like those would help them endear themselves to the public more, on a personal level. IMO.

I'm just curious, but what are the NHS guidelines for a post-partum stay in the hospital? How long do women typically remain after the birth? Here in the US, it's very common to go home after one night, or even late on the same day if the baby is born in the early morning. I myself had many complications in both of my births and stayed for several days after each, but that's not usual.
Most mothers are out of hospital within twenty four hours of giving birth if it was normal with no complications.
My daughter was born in 2000. She was born at four in the morning and I was practically kicked out by two thirty in the afternoon of that day much to my dismay.....I wanted to stay in for a bit longer and sleep but the hospital wasn't having any of it!

Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 58

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by MissesWillYa on 25.03.14 21:13

@tigger wrote:The logical photograph to include in the book Madeleine is imo one of the proud parents with their first baby. Not necessarily just after the birth, but soon afterwards. properly posed.

Another photo one might expect is the christening which good catholics should do within weeks or at least months.
An occasion for a precious gown, family and friends dressed up, a party afterwards.

NOT the weird photo of Kate with a glass of wine and a baby on her hip seen from some distance.

I totally agree, Tigger. I wouldn't necessarily expect photos of them right after the birth to be published but something more homey and casual wouldn't be out of place. A posed photo like a christening is something I hadn't even thought of, but it's interesting that none were shared, especially since much was made of their friend/priest having been the one to baptize Madeleine (and much has been made of their Catholicism in general). I would have expected a photo of that event, or maybe of all three adults with the baby on the special day.

MissesWillYa

Posts : 180
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2013-04-25
Location : On a mountaintop

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by MissesWillYa on 25.03.14 21:15

@Hicks wrote:
@MissesWillYa wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I agree, Miraflores.

There is no reason why anyone should have to release photos in the public domain of themselves being visibly pregnant.

There are a few "look at me" actresses who think this is a good idea - particularly while unclothed - but I certainly don't!

The puzzle for me is not why Kate didn't release any such photos of herself but why she chose to inflict those ghastly inappropriate photos of Madeleine before the holiday on us, rather than any believable ones while she was there.

I agree with both of you, though I do think most of their photos seem a little strange in some way. I also think it's odd that such inappropriate photos of Madeleine have been shown but not the more pedestrian types of photos, including pregnancy or brand-new baby photos. It seems like those would help them endear themselves to the public more, on a personal level. IMO.

I'm just curious, but what are the NHS guidelines for a post-partum stay in the hospital? How long do women typically remain after the birth? Here in the US, it's very common to go home after one night, or even late on the same day if the baby is born in the early morning. I myself had many complications in both of my births and stayed for several days after each, but that's not usual.
Most mothers are out of hospital within twenty four hours of giving birth if it was normal with no complications.
My daughter was born in 2000. She was born at four in the morning and I was practically kicked out by two thirty in the afternoon of that day much to my dismay.....I wanted to stay in for a bit longer and sleep but the hospital wasn't having any of it!

Thank you for answering my question, Hicks. I don't love hospital environments but I have to say that having some extra time in after my births wasn't such a bad thing, especially for getting feeding going right and things like that. If it makes you feel any better, my husband was born in 1977 in the US and his mother was sent home after only a couple of hours. She already had a toddler at home and was looking forward to a little break. :)

MissesWillYa

Posts : 180
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2013-04-25
Location : On a mountaintop

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by Hicks on 25.03.14 21:31

Ok, this link is a good source....this site in fact!

Please scroll down, you will see the black and white photo. It is Madeleine.

I remain convinced that Kate did not actually give birth to Madeleine. 


http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5717p90-photographs-and-memories.

Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 58

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by XTC on 25.03.14 23:20

@joyce1938 wrote:Yes I do recall theneedlestick test that is taken from all babies born here in England one from the heel as a rule . I too felt that it wasn't mentioned much ans after the pillowcase was fetched ,I appeared to take on more importence than heel one  .no news on here who supplied it ,or who requested it,just a bit of non entity . that one surely would need to take prevalence over pillowcase one ,unless ofcourse both had same findings and was same ? joyce1938
The FSS ( Mr Lowe? ) boss said that the hired car DNA sample was inconclusive because of there being a mix of 3 or more contributors to
the questioned sample.

The puzzle is how did he separate the 3 or more contributors from the mix? I don't know the answer to that but whatever the FSS did
they tested 19 markers ( parental sample from the Rothley  pillowcase ) against the 37 components total contributors and if 18 were excluded
as not being Madeleine ( or the parental markers) then these were conclusively not Madeleine ( exclusion) but 19 leftover components could possibly be Madeleine's.

Of these 15 matched Madeleine's parental DNA markers and 4 didn't. If the heel stick sample had of been obtained before the FSS carried
out its hurried/pressurised tests I think that maybe they could have ruled the inclusion out simply by there being more markers to exclude
from and not the " by chance " caveat.

For the life of me I can't understand why 5 doctors and a host of Forennsic science experts didn't suggest a heel stick test as a perfect
way of obtaining Madleines total DNA.

 Perhaps they forgot?

XTC

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by bodiddly on 25.03.14 23:37

Maybe it is just me but this topic is getting silly now.

1. Just because KM says that is baby MM it don't make it so.
2. The baby does not look a few hours old. The baby looks a few weeks old atleast. Even if your right and the baby is several hours old, what is wrong with putting some makeup on before you leave hospital as a family of 3.

MM could have been a prem baby in which case that could be a 10 week old for all we know.

Just because KM has put some lippy on to pose for a pic, it doesn't mean the baby isn't hers.

Some women just want to have a nice picture that they look nice in. Some women look forward to having a nice made up face and to be back in normal clothes again after going through a pregnancy.

3. Even if KM had a baby born of a surrogate (which I doubt IMO) that would mean the twins were probably a surrogate too.
There is no reason to think that a woman who had to have a surrogate in order to be a mummy would feel less of a connection to that child.

So far there have been insinuations of having a lack of a bond with a child that is
Not biologically yours from a donor egg and from a surrogate but biologically yours.
That is quite offensive to all those out there that have had a much wanted family that way and haven't  had them *disappear*  on a holiday!

____________________
A lie cannot live...Martin Luther King, Jr.

bodiddly

Posts : 77
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by Guest on 26.03.14 8:57

I completely agree Bodiddly - I find some of these posts regarding the fact that KM would have had less of a connection or bond to MBM if she was born via a surrogate or via an egg donor highly offensive.  I have even seen posts suggesting that because she had IVF then there is less of a bond!  These are sweeping and ignorant generalisations that have absolutely no basis in reality.

Yes there are implications for the parenting bond for IVF, donor-conceived and surrogate children but it is rarely regarding lack of a bond, if anything exactly the opposite.  And it may make parenting slightly different, not better not worse.  I have some links I can post later re parenting after IVF, assisted conception etc for those that are interested in the reality of the situation.

These posts have really put me of this forum.

And I speak from my own personal experience by the way.


ETA : for anyone interested in parenting after any form of assisted conception I would recommend Kate Brian's 'Precious Babies - pregnancy, birth and parenting after infertility'. 

http://www.katebrian.co.uk/index.php/books?id=4

IT contains sections on assisted conception such as IVF, ICSI, egg donation and surrogacy.  I would highly recommend a read of this before making general sweeping assertions about the reality of parenting after any of the above. This book is of course, just an introduction and a personal, well-researched point of view.  Some of the comments on here have made me cringe with embarassment at their crassness and naiveity, and are doing this forum no favours imo.   

Rant over - keep up the good work!  roses

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by Guest on 26.03.14 10:02

Just because a baby is conceived and born naturally it does not necessarily follow that there will be a close mother-child bond.This is difficult to comprehend because, for most people, the bond between parent and child is a deeply primeval instinct.

However, a narcissist mother needs one of her children to be a scapegoat for everything that is wrong with her life. Madeleine was Kate's scapegoat just as I was (am) my mother's scapegoat. The normal bond just isn't there.

@ Bodiddly & BlackCatBoogie, please don't be offended by posters who are trying to understand something that they will never experience by connecting it to something they are unfamiliar with. I don't know whether IVF or surrogacy can affect the bonding process but I do know that I was conceived and born naturally and do not have a normal bond with my mother.

Rather than being put off, please use your experience and factual knowledge to correct any misapprehensions.

@ BlackCatBoogie's edit - now that's what I was talking about  thumbup 

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by Hicks on 26.03.14 11:47

Just to set the record straight, I have in no way inferred that children born to surrogate parents, or children born through IVF, have less of a bond to their parents than those children who were born naturally. Nor am I particularly interested in doing so.
My only focus is trying to explore and understand why the McCann's  thought that is was ok to leave three children under the age of five for very lengthy periods in a foreign country. Why Kate seems to lack any emotion when discussing Madeleine, from the 4th May onwards to present day. If anyone can give a better explanation then lets hear it otherwise we can only speculate. 

IMO Kate McCann in particular did not seem to have a strong bond with Madeleine, for what reason is unclear as of yet.

Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 58

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by Guest on 26.03.14 12:49

Thanks you for your comments Poe - you sound a very wise person.

All I can say is that from my own personal experiences (and of many others in the same position as me) the bond between a parent and child does not depend wholly on a genetic or biological connections.  It is just soooo much more complicated than that.  I think it is just glaringly wrong to suggest that because a person may have had some form of assisted conception (ivf, donated eggs, sperm, surrogacy or whatever) then there will be a problem with bonding and emotional distance.  Or indeed, adoption.

As Poe rightly says, I can understand that to someone who has never experienced this or looking in from the outside it may seem a strange and scary concept and bound to cause bonding/emotional issues but I can assure you that that is not the case.  As Poe says those born naturally to their parents can sometimes have bonding problems for whatever reason.

Sorry for the rant but it really is much more complicated than many are suggesting (wasn't referring just to your post Hicks!) and imo sweeping generalisations are doing a disservice to this forum.

BUT, yet again, in saying the above I am referring to 'normal' people - if one or both of the Mccanns had a highly narcissist or pyscopathic personality then maybe there would be problems (whatever the mode of conception). Who knows.

Sorry to disrupt this thread, please let it continue  roses

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by Praia on 26.03.14 13:28

Perhaps reread the theory on Jacqueline McCann and her partner who was murdered. It might make more sense then.

____________________


Praia

Posts : 392
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-12-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by Guest on 26.03.14 14:02

@Praia wrote:Perhaps reread the theory on Jacqueline McCann and her partner who was murdered. It might make more sense then.

I am familiar with that theory Praia, I think (i.e that MBM was the natual child of JM and that KM/GM adopted her after the murder of her natural father - pls correct me if wrong).

This would be fairly unusual set of circumstances which would indeed throw up an fairly unusual set of parenting issues.  But that still wouldn't automatically lead to the sort of bonding problems discussed above.  It would have it's own unique set of parenting issues due to the unusual and specific circumstances - not least the murder of the natual father and the decision that MBM was to be parented by KM/GM (not JM).

A horribly difficult and sad situation yes, but who are we to say that it would lead to bonding issues between the adoptive parents and child?  Future issues for the child yes, but not necessarily bonding issues coming from the adoptive parents surely?

Please can you explain a bit further what you mean, in case I have misunderstood what you are saying.

I do agree btw that there does appear to be a lack of emotional connection between KM/MBM, the language she uses around her is very detatched and impersonal and just odd. I would say that there was/is something very wrong somewhere but what is a far more complicated question...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by Praia on 26.03.14 14:14

Do not have ability to dig out my notes, pain,  but I searched the Scottish system for the partners case at the time and ZILCH!

There was a huge amount og research done into this at the time and if you can give me time I wll see what I have.
The dates tallied. Sorry am in pain now but if you are interested pm me.

____________________


Praia

Posts : 392
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-12-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by Guest on 26.03.14 14:22

@Praia wrote:Do not have ability to dig out my notes, pain,  but I searched the Scottish system for the partners case at the time and ZILCH!

There was a huge amount og research done into this at the time and if you can give me time I wll see what I have.
The dates tallied. Sorry am in pain now but if you are interested pm me.

I had forgotten about Gerry's sister, Jacqueline, and this is the first time I've heard about her possibly being MBM's mother. 
  
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4663-was-this-paper-ever-sued

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by bodiddly on 26.03.14 17:08

By looking for reasons for detachment and simply implying it may be due to IVF, surrogacy, adoption or egg donation you are Insinuating that it causes a detachment. In particular the one poster who can't let go of this. Harriet seems to have moved from egg donation to surrogacy in her quest. I am waiting on the stork bringing MM next.

MM looks remarkably like KM. For that reason alone I can not take an aunt on the fathers side as a birth mother or a donor. A surrogate possibly but not IMO.
The files state GM and KM are the natural parents of MM.
So what if there aren't any pregnancy pics of MM in the public domain.   Are there any of the twins?
If MM was a donor then so most likely were the twins. If MM was a surrogacy then so most likely were the twins.

I appreciate that all avenues are being looked at ref KM's detached attitude to MM.
The fact that her medical records were withheld will probably remain a mystery. Maybe it was simply another control  measure on behalf of the couple. Maybe they were trying to hide something. I dont even know if it would state adoption or IVF or surrogacy on MM. medical records. Do the records not just start from birth? I ask as I am unsure.

All I know is that looking at it as a theory will get you no where fast. It means nothing. Even if you are right and the files are wrong. You have absoloutley no way of ever knowing how KM truly felt about MM.

If MM was adopted (through a family member) then the other family members would have noticed, (by being heavily involved in helping KM) if she may have been struggling. They surely would have taken MM. One relative atleast would have intervened in some way and would have screamed their head off from the rooftops the moment the child "disappeared".

IMO the detached attitude is something more obvious.
If you are responsible for the demise of someone you either get eaten up with guilt or you find a way to deal with it.
Sometimes that way might just be to detach yourself from that person. You have to not care about what happened and care more about getting through it. Everything would be about the remaining family and themselves.

MM was the eldest of three. Anyone who has been an oldest child or has more than two children close in age will know what I am about to say.
Sometimes without meaning to you baby the baby ones. The older one should know better. The older one should behave better etc etc. A lot of pressure can go on the oldest child. A lot more expectations etc. This is why to some it MIGHT seem that there is a different feeling towards the twins

KM knows what happened to MM. "I know, I was there".
KM acts guilty because she is.
KM acts detached because she has to be.
IMO it is as simple as that.

____________________
A lie cannot live...Martin Luther King, Jr.

bodiddly

Posts : 77
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by Guest on 26.03.14 18:15

@bodiddly wrote:
I appreciate that all avenues are being looked at ref KM's detached attitude to MM.
The fact that her medical records were withheld will probably remain a mystery. Maybe it was simply another control  measure on behalf of the couple. Maybe they were trying to hide something. I dont even know if it would state adoption or IVF or surrogacy on MM. medical records. Do the records not just start from birth? I ask as I am unsure.

Re the medical record bodiddly, if you asked to be referred to a fertility clinic via your normal family GP then there would be a record of the referral on your GP medical file. But this is only if you wanted to be referred to a UK fertility clinic, if you went abroad say, you just take your pick re the best clinic and refer yourself.  Although there are now established links between certain fertility clinics in the UK and abroad you can visit a fertility clinic abroad without any kind of referral from the UK.

If you got pregnant via IVF (using either your own or donated gametes) then there is no need to reveal that you got pregnant this way either to your family GP or to your maternity carers.  However, it is possible that in some cases this information may be relevant to your maternal care so some women may reveal certain information as and when it is necessary.  It can be requested that this remains confidential though and then it does not find it's way onto your child's medical records unless you specifically ask for it to be recorded via your family GP.

As for surrogacy then that is more complicated I guess as the mother does not actually give birth to the child, I do not have experience of this so I cannot comment on the medical records.

As for comments on supposed similarities between certain family members then is also worth having a look at the topic of epigenetics.  This is where say, the recipient of a donor egg can actually cause the switching on and off of certain matching dna in the resulting child. So although they do not share the exact actual dna the donor child could actually look/have characteristics like the mother in some cases - so even this is not as straightforward as some may think.   spin 

If there is an expert on epigentics here then it would be very interesting to hear their view on the apparant dna results in this case.

ETA: a bit of basic info re epigenetics here:-

http://bscb.org/learning-resources/softcell-e-learning/epigenetics-its-not-just-genes-that-make-us/
http://www.bionews.org.uk/page_46274.asp

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A theory, was Madeleine their natural child

Post by bodiddly on 26.03.14 20:02

Thank you Blackcatboogie :)

____________________
A lie cannot live...Martin Luther King, Jr.

bodiddly

Posts : 77
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum