Re: Substitute child?

by Ribisl 10.03.12 10:44

Stella wrote:
Ribisl wrote:
Stella wrote:
Ribisl wrote:Not enough time to wash and dry curtains may suggest earlier death but it does not imply there was a sub, does it?

That kind of depends on how reliable you think an independent witnesses statement is. Mr Edmonds has a picture with Madeleine in the background. Madeleine was in creche all morning and all afternoon. For lunch they eat in their apartment, or that of the Payne's. So the only obvious time this photograph could have been taken was after high tea. Madeleine was signed out of creche at 5.30. High tea must have finished around 6pm. Photo taken after 6pm ?? So where is the time for accident + curtians + clean up ?

The official account is that Madeleine was really exhausted and had to be carried back to the apartment after tea and never went out again. That had to be shortly before 18.00 because GM was playing tennis at 18.00. Isn't it true that this picture taken by Edmonds has never been made public? Potentially the last photo of Madeleine yet never published. Why?

Maybe it will show up in the SY/PJ review -> reopening of the case

Exactly. We only found out about this when Tony Bennett contacted him. According to Mr Edmonds, he gave his pictures to the Police and to the McCann's. He does not state which Police force he gave his photos to.

You're absolutely right about Madeleine being exhausted. But I still cannot see Edmonds and his boys being in the same spot where high tea happens for the very young children. So somethings not right here.

by aiyoyo 11.03.12 18:24

Stella wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:I believe Maddie met her fate hours earlier than timeline created by mccanns as their alibi for neglect, but not as early as start of holiday.

Then how do you explain the following:

KM/GM deleting so many calls and texts starting from the 1st May?

RM and GM switching their phones off at the same time on the 2nd?

RM and GM switching their phones back on at the same time on the 3rd?

The questionable handwriting entries all week?

But when you say "Maddie met her fate hours earlier than timeline created". Have you tested out that theory on paper yet, to see if that is even feasible?

Alarm was raised at 10pm, they left for dinner around 8.30pm, cadaverine takes over 90 mins to develop. It would take 2 hours to clean the entire apartment of all DNA material on every surface in 6 different areas, which puts TOD before 6 pm. Gerry was playing tennis all this time and Kate is no Superwoman and previously employed a cleaner.

I would say that is not humanly possible, considering how many tiles had to be taken up to recover blood from underneath them. Where did the cleaning materials come from and the waste go to? How did they let the others know what to do next?

For me, this is a far more difficult possibility, compared to the only other one currently on the table.

Interesting don't you think, that no one as yet has come up with any other alernative. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Stella, it's only my view she couldn't have been substituted and not noticed.

From your creche thread I was able to take advantage of the concise points and made some observations.
It appears to me the records were checked just by the nannies, going by fact squiggly lines were drawn to divide am from pm,
and the dad's name where wrongly entered was replaced by the child's name, and apt number wrongly entered also corrected.

There were very few children in the Lobster creche in the 5 days from 29/4 to 3/5. At any one time the most ever present were 6 children consisting of equal number of boys and girls. At most only 4 girls were ever present. In each session there is an average of only about 3-4 children. Out of the 5 days Maddie was there, she was checked in late at least on 3 morning sessions, later than the rest of the children. That might be a sign the mccanns struggle to get their children organised, but to be fair they had the most children in the group, however that is beside the point. Pertinently, I believe because of her constant lateness she must stood out for the nanny and they cant have failed to notice she was always the only child checked in late,or failed to note whose child she was, or failed to place a name to her face by then. In short, because of that irregularity she would have been noticed as an exception.

Besides, given the average number of children ever there is 4 at any one session I should think that even if only one nanny was on duty, no child can get lost in that sort of crowd, not within the confine of a small room anyway. Meaning I should hardly think the nanny can fail to recognise the child or confused the identity of the child. The only way the accurate identity issue can arise is if the nanny is changed each and every day. If that being the case then every day is a fresh start for a fresh nanny without prior memory to rely on. Of course it is just my observations and I could be well wrong.

You are very passionate about your research and is doing very good work and I respect that, but as to whether any researched analysis and theory is proven one way or the other is subjective IMO.

IMV Kate and Gerry deletion of the call history was done as collective clean up wanting to give the impression they didnt use the phone during the holiday, and not selective as to which is incriminating and which is not. Of course we know they did it as a preventive measures against detection of incrimination.

As to reason why Gerry and Murat phones were off and back on in sync is a complete mystery.
It is too freaky a coincidence that it must be fishy,but as to how that co-relates to Madeleine I am perplexed.
Question has to be asked if he was helping them in anyway pertaining to the homicide either be it supplying them info or helping with supply of empty property then it is inexplicable why the 3 tapas ladies fingered him, and why kate dropped him in the shit - that would be a very treacherous thing to do.
What is even more inexplicable is why he didn't sue any of those who set up him or why he didn't at least bad mouthed them, which I know makes it even more suspicious he was involved with them rather than the other way round.

What I am more interested to know would be why BK met up with him where both sides lawyers were in attendance - it cant be to exchange weather info or to discuss golf. That stinks to high heaven but what was his exact role is yet to be known, and again I hope the reopened investigation will give us answers.

The time needed for cadaverine emission, clean up and rearrangement of furniture, and my belief that most normal people who found themselves in an accidental domestic homicide would use not beyond 24 hours to dispose and get sorted out, are all reasons why I think her death occurred hours earlier than data in the public domain but not as early as start of holiday.

I admit I've not laid out this on papers to see how it works.
Even if I were to try I doubt I can unravel the circumstances surrounding her mystery disappearance despite the data in the public domain and despite people's extensive research because I don't believe mccanns and friends versions to the Police are truthful.
It is what they are not telling us that is interesting.
Of course all this is just strictly my opinion.
.

by uppatoffee 11.03.12 19:04

Aiyoyo if there was a substitute that attended the crèche from day 1 then the nannies wouldn't get confused.

by aiyoyo 12.03.12 3:00

uppatoffee wrote:Aiyoyo if there was a substitute that attended the crèche from day 1 then the nannies wouldn't get confused.

Now who would allow their child to be used as substitute - that is one question?
More pertinently, why should they? Does it mean they were let into the secret?
Even best mates wont help friends cover up, unless they are implicated, so is it logical to assume an acquaintance would do that for the mccanns? Even on the premise the Mccanns and Naylors are close friends that we are not aware of, why would Naylors want to implicate themselves in something criminal?

The other point is : if Naylor's child was used to sub for Maddie, then who subs for Naylor's child given that Elizabeth was listed as having attended as well as Maddie.
Surely with just under a handful usually, and rarely over a handful of children checked into the creche at any one session over the period of 5 days it cant be too difficult for the Nanny to do their maths when it comes to tally head count.

If we are talking big establishment with large number of children attending daily then head count may not be as diligently done or chances for error are higher, But in a laid back low season holiday resort with only a handful of children in the creche and apparently two nannies on duty, I should hardly think the Nannies can't differentiate or cant count.

by Genbug 12.03.12 10:02

uppatoffee wrote:Aiyoyo if there was a substitute that attended the crèche from day 1 then the nannies wouldn't get confused.

I'm still not convinced uppatoffee. Firstly, the child would have to be called Madeleine or Maddie (Charlotte Pennington says in her statement that she introduced her self as Maddie). You couldn't get a three year old to pretend to be someone else all week.

Secondly, she would have to look very much like Madeleine. I know Bridget O'Donnell goes on about all the little girls looking the same, but of course they don't. Madeleine was quite distinctive looking according to the photos. Not a particularly pretty child, but with dimples and elfin features. Any substitute would have to look just like her or else surely the nannies would look at the photos that have been released and say "but that's not the girl in the creche that we called Madeleine..."?

If we go with the substitute from day one theory (and I personally don't really have an opinion of whether there was or wasn't), we would have to assume that the nannies have been less than truthful and also that this whole thing was planned right from the beginning, that the whole thing is a scam. Nobody would say "hey you can use my child to cover up the fact that you've murdered yours!"

I understand the substitute theory but it would have to point to far bigger things going on in PDL that week than a missing or accidentally killed child in my opinion. I don't think you could put the substitute child and accidental death theories together, they just don't fit.

by russiandoll 12.03.12 10:49

about the sub

from my reading I believe it was a friend of the Naylor's child [with Maddie's name but different spelling ] who has been discussed as a possible sub.
she would have to have attended creche from the outset I believe to be accepted as the McCanns daughter.
how would the twins have reacted to this strange child? one nanny said Maddie accompanied one or both parents when they were picked up from creche? Maddie was happy and excited to see her siblings. Would another girl act this way with the twins?

The more people involved in the scam the more likely it would be discovered and unravel.
It points to something much more sinister than the cover- up of an accidental death.
Too complicated when the truth is probably more simple.

But how to answer questions about Gerry's signing in another child that week?

So many questions.....

by aiyoyo 14.03.12 11:54

Genbug wrote:I know Bridget O'Donnell goes on about all the little girls looking the same ....

Well, that maybe so from a distance. But on close up it is a different matter altogether.

Bear in mind nannies are face to face with the child, and interact with the child the whole time the child is left in the creche.
And, like I said earlier, with only an average of 4 children in one session I should think unless the nannies are very sloppy in fact not only that they would have to be negligent if they didn't notice the child they minded didn't fit the photo in the public domain.

Another point is - even say if the nannies can mistaken the child, how can they fail to recognise the parents?
They must have seen the mccanns checking in or taking out the child. How would the "sub" react to Kate and Gerry if the child wasn't Madeleine?

Dont tell me the "sub" is even trained to address Kate and Gerry as "mummy" and "daddy"?

by rainbow-fairy 14.03.12 12:24

aiyoyo wrote:
Genbug wrote:I know Bridget O'Donnell goes on about all the little girls looking the same ....

Well, that maybe so from a distance. But on close up it is a different matter altogether.

Bear in mind nannies are face to face with the child, and interact with the child the whole time the child is left in the creche.
And, like I said earlier, with only an average of 4 children in one session I should think unless the nannies are very sloppy in fact not only that they would have to be negligent if they didn't notice the child they minded didn't fit the photo in the public domain.

Another point is - even say if the nannies can mistaken the child, how can they fail to recognise the parents?
They must have seen the mccanns checking in or taking out the child. How would the "sub" react to Kate and Gerry if the child wasn't Madeleine?

Dont tell me the "sub" is even trained to address Kate and Gerry as "mummy" and "daddy"?

Two things jump out aiyoyo.
1)Not ALL kids call their parents 'Mummy' and 'Daddy'. Some (and I find it v odd) call their parents by their Christian names. As I say, I find it odd, but it happens. Also, a "sub" could easily be 'trained' if it was put forward as a game - kind of 'We'll play a fun game on holiday - I'll be Mummy - would you like that?'
My son gets a minibus to school with a neighbours daughter. My son is autistic and the daughter has epilepsy and brain damage. She calls me 'Mum' and her mum 'Mum'. Often I've said 'Which 'Mum' do you want, sweetheart?' Apparently, any adult female is 'Mum'. Several posters have intimated that Maddie could've been ill and had special needs, so its certainly not as outlandish a concept as it first might seem.
2)How do we KNOW that not one of the nannies said 'That is not the same child we were looking after'? Don't forget, there is a significant portion of the files withheld by PT/PJ, who is to say there isn't a statement from a nanny in there, questioning the child's identity?

by Guest 14.03.12 14:00

Forgive me for rambling off the point but Rainbow-Fairy has reminded me that my son used to call any adult "daddy" which could be embarrassing at times! When he was a bit older, he said referring to me and his childminder that he had "two mummies".

I think I could have farmed him out to anyone!

by aiyoyo 14.03.12 17:09

rainbow-fairy wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Genbug wrote:I know Bridget O'Donnell goes on about all the little girls looking the same ....

Well, that maybe so from a distance. But on close up it is a different matter altogether.

Bear in mind nannies are face to face with the child, and interact with the child the whole time the child is left in the creche.
And, like I said earlier, with only an average of 4 children in one session I should think unless the nannies are very sloppy in fact not only that they would have to be negligent if they didn't notice the child they minded didn't fit the photo in the public domain.

Another point is - even say if the nannies can mistaken the child, how can they fail to recognise the parents?
They must have seen the mccanns checking in or taking out the child. How would the "sub" react to Kate and Gerry if the child wasn't Madeleine?

Dont tell me the "sub" is even trained to address Kate and Gerry as "mummy" and "daddy"?
Two things jump out aiyoyo.
1)Not ALL kids call their parents 'Mummy' and 'Daddy'. Some (and I find it v odd) call their parents by their Christian names. As I say, I find it odd, but it happens. Also, a "sub" could easily be 'trained' if it was put forward as a game - kind of 'We'll play a fun game on holiday - I'll be Mummy - would you like that?'
My son gets a minibus to school with a neighbours daughter. My son is autistic and the daughter has epilepsy and brain damage. She calls me 'Mum' and her mum 'Mum'. Often I've said 'Which 'Mum' do you want, sweetheart?' Apparently, any adult female is 'Mum'. Several posters have intimated that Maddie could've been ill and had special needs, so its certainly not as outlandish a concept as it first might seem.
2)How do we KNOW that not one of the nannies said 'That is not the same child we were looking after'? Don't forget, there is a significant portion of the files withheld by PT/PJ, who is to say there isn't a statement from a nanny in there, questioning the child's identity?

RF,
With due respect, you said yourself the two children you cited have medical conditions and they are exception not the norm.

Normal children can differentiate their parents from others and dont normally call strangers or even family friends as "Mummy" and "Daddy" not even for games. And they have short term memory, while an active game is on involving their children of their age group as players they might remember it was a game.

Else I cant see how a sub left at a creche for few hours can suddenly remember they were supposed to be still playing a game hence they have to remember to call kate or gerry 'mummy' and 'daddy'. Dont forget even if we think Maddie had a medical condition and could have called anyone mum and dad, it's stretching the imagination to the limit to expect the sub also to be inflicted with same medical condition?

I dont believe for a mo. a sub can remember she is keeping up a game. Children are very candid. IF there is such a game the sub is likely to have told their nannies. I still work with children and you will be surprised the things they tell me. Children at that age do not know what is secret.

by **tigger** 14.03.12 17:30

I really can't see a problem with a sub. In the first place - as long as the child knows you and her parents have told her to go with say - 'Gerry' , she will recognize him on being collected, only the first day might be tricky, after that it's going to be routine.
The nannies wouldn't see a problem with a child calling her father by his name.

The more I find out about Maddie, the more I think the sub was essential. I only see a problem if it had to be arranged during the holiday.
I can even see a scenario like this: (just to give a new slant to the problem)
What if:
The plan is to pass Maddie on to a third party and stage a fake abduction with all the frills - Fund, government protection etc. photographs etc.
A sub will be used to prove her presence in OC.
Maddie actually does have an accident - through overdosing or whatever.
Plans have to be changed and body is moved to freezer/cellar/wherever.
Abduction may have been planned for the 2nd, but is moved to the third.

I think we should never lose sight of the fact that the central figure here - the mover and shaker - is Gerry, not Kate who was pretty well catatonic at the start.
It's Gerry and Gerry's ambitions that are the cause of all this. Imo Gerry had very high hopes of gaining a position in life he'd always wanted, something political - international. He already had the political jargon off to a 't'.
He's also a control freak imo. Whereas Kate looks completely washed out these days, Gerry seems to be burning with an enduring fury.

Kate's warbling on about the people who'd be looking after her - in the early days is possibly a pointer.
Easier to get the family on their side.

Go on - tear my edifice down Aiyoyo! It's a wild card but it would certainly be easier to get help from friends and family?

by Ribisl 14.03.12 17:35

I fully agree with your argument, Aiyoyo. For all the reasons already mentioned in this thread I consider it highly unlikely there to have been a substitute child. I respect the opinion of the others who believe in this theory but frankly I find the logic behind their arguments rather convoluted and often lacking in common sense. That's just another opinion but I am sticking by it.

Somebody just give me one convincing reason for the need for a sub nah

by Guest 14.03.12 17:56

The substitute argument hinges on when you think Madeleine died. If you think that she died on 3rd May then of course then this argument is not relevant.

However, if you believe that she died before then, how do you account for the fact that the nannies believed that there was a child in the creche than answered to " Maddie"? So either there was (a) a substitute (b) a case of mistaken identity or (c) the nannies have been " economical with the truth" - to put it mildly.

Just to play devil`s advocate here ( and this fits in with a predominant theory on another forum) you could argue that Madeleine died on Wednesday evening and that the nannies were mistaken about her presence in the creche and the sailing trip on Thursday. One day`s confusion could be understandable but surely not longer.

The signing in and out arrangements for the creche are haphazard to put it mildly, but even if you take those into account you still have to take into account the nannies`s statements.

by **tigger** 14.03.12 18:12

Ribisl wrote:I fully agree with your argument, Aiyoyo. For all the reasons already mentioned in this thread I consider it highly unlikely there to have been a substitute child. I respect the opinion of the others who believe in this theory but frankly I find the logic behind their arguments rather convoluted and often lacking in common sense. That's just another opinion but I am sticking by it.

Somebody just give me one convincing reason for the need for a sub

An outstandingly beautiful child had to go missing. Maddie didn't look anything like the poster - you could not call Maddie photogenic - she was a fairly normal toddler with imo something wrong with her health. Those heavy bags under the eyes are not normal for a child that age and would have been noticed by the nannies.
She looks different in lots of photographs, when she is laughing the thick eyes are not so noticeable.

The media wouldn't have bothered that much if for instance - the photograph at .50 in the video on page 1 had been used.
In the last DM effort, there were lots of posts on 'this beautiful child could still be found'. The world is rather superficial imo.
A sub who could pass for the poster girl would be necessary for the scheme to succeed. A sub who could pass for Maddie would be of no use at all.

by Kololi 14.03.12 22:36

I am 100% with Ribsl and Aiyoyo on this.

I deliberately don't post to threads I find a little odd but this one has gone on and on so hey here it is for what it is worth. Mine is a simple question.

Why would any sane person offer up their child for this sort of shannigans?

The circle just gets bigger and bigger with more and more likelihood that somebody will squeal and surely the odds are that at least one of their friends had too much of a conscience to keep this under wraps. If your mate asked you to keep such a dreadful secret could you do it? Even on this board we have a range of people with a range of personalities. Under the same circumstances I am betting that at least a handful of us, and probably more, would refuse point blank to either lend a child or tell such awful lies to cover a child's death. Why would they be so different? They may have been neglectful and selfish leaving their children alone at night but come on - lending children to others to cover up some dastardly deed????

by Ribisl 15.03.12 0:09

Was going to try to post somethIng more meaningful but here I am rather worse for wear and tap tapping on my iphone.
I just don't get this fixation you seem to have about how Madeleine looks different in some photos and what that's got to do with the need for a sub. I can't follow the logic, sorry spin

by aiyoyo 15.03.12 2:39

tigger wrote:I really can't see a problem with a sub. In the first place - as long as the child knows you and her parents have told her to go with say - 'Gerry' , she will recognize him on being collected, only the first day might be tricky, after that it's going to be routine.
The nannies wouldn't see a problem with a child calling her father by his name.

The more I find out about Maddie, the more I think the sub was essential. I only see a problem if it had to be arranged during the holiday.
I can even see a scenario like this: (just to give a new slant to the problem)
What if:
The plan is to pass Maddie on to a third party and stage a fake abduction with all the frills - Fund, government protection etc. photographs etc.
A sub will be used to prove her presence in OC.
Maddie actually does have an accident - through overdosing or whatever.
Plans have to be changed and body is moved to freezer/cellar/wherever.
Abduction may have been planned for the 2nd, but is moved to the third.

I think we should never lose sight of the fact that the central figure here - the mover and shaker - is Gerry, not Kate who was pretty well catatonic at the start.
It's Gerry and Gerry's ambitions that are the cause of all this. Imo Gerry had very high hopes of gaining a position in life he'd always wanted, something political - international. He already had the political jargon off to a 't'.
He's also a control freak imo. Whereas Kate looks completely washed out these days, Gerry seems to be burning with an enduring fury.

Kate's warbling on about the people who'd be looking after her - in the early days is possibly a pointer.
Easier to get the family on their side.

Go on - tear my edifice down Aiyoyo! It's a wild card but it would certainly be easier to get help from friends and family?

Tigger dear,
Why would I do that? Yours is a theory and I respect purporting of theories as I respect and appreciate the hard work of researchers. It gives a different angle but I am just saying from my view point it is not feasible because too many outside factors were involved and as you noticed too, Gerry is a control freak who has to control every element.

Besides why should Gerry's ambition or the progress of it has anything to do with wasting Madeleine?
Another thing is if she was meant to be given away or whatever why do that in PDL towing all their friends along?
They could equally have done it in the UK.

Besides if Gerry were to work on his ambition in the proper manner using normal route he would probably achieve his objective and earn plenty more without the need to rely on public donated fund to get rich, a fund that is constantly under scrutiny and that appeared dodgy to people. How is he going to splash on themselves on the dodgy money without the scandal splashed all over the Papers?

I still think it was an accidental death but plenty of people whether directly implicated in the crime or not were involved in helping them cover up. It's about the hiding the scandal of "white middle class professionals" that will rock the nation and the world that people of their social ladder or higher up see nothing wrong in helping them to hide something that is accidental. The society we live in it getting very morally sicked. Of course who is to know whose theory is right - I suspect even the Police is still working on refining their theory

Anyway I am open minded to theories of how, where, why, and so forth, but sorry not open to theory she is abducted.
She is dead, sadly. Her parents and their friends behavior prove that to me. How and Why is what we all want to know.

by Guest 15.03.12 11:56

tigger wrote:I really can't see a problem with a sub. In the first place - as long as the child knows you and her parents have told her to go with say - 'Gerry' , she will recognize him on being collected, only the first day might be tricky, after that it's going to be routine. I agree and this could account for the unexplained late arrival on the first day and why there was no identity bracelets.

The nannies wouldn't see a problem with a child calling her father by his name.

A child would not call anyone by their name on collection or drop-off, only if you ask them what someones name was and I cannot see that happening. The other way round yes, the adult calling a child by their name, but not child to adult.

The more I find out about Maddie, the more I think the sub was essential. I only see a problem if it had to be arranged during the holiday.

On that premise. How do you think a sub could have been arranged, let's say, to be in place for the morning of the 29th?

I can even see a scenario like this: (just to give a new slant to the problem)
What if:
The plan is to pass Maddie on to a third party and stage a fake abduction with all the frills - Fund, government protection etc. photographs etc. No, I don't think it happened like that.
A sub will be used to prove her presence in OC. Agree. This is the only explanation for a presence & early death.
Maddie actually does have an accident - through overdosing or whatever. Maybe, or by design.
Plans have to be changed and body is moved to freezer/cellar/wherever. Agree.
Abduction may have been planned for the 2nd, but is moved to the third. It's funny you should say that. There have been a few things I have seen now which makes me think the same.

I think we should never lose sight of the fact that the central figure here - the mover and shaker - is Gerry, not Kate who was pretty well catatonic at the start. I agree with that entirely. You can see the lack of Kate in the creche sheets, yet someone is signing here in most of the week.
It's Gerry and Gerry's ambitions that are the cause of all this. Imo Gerry had very high hopes of gaining a position in life he'd always wanted, something political - international. He already had the political jargon off to a 't'.
He's also a control freak imo. Whereas Kate looks completely washed out these days, Gerry seems to be burning with an enduring fury.
I disagree. I think the answers lie within the Gasper statement and what has happened on previous holidays.

Kate's warbling on about the people who'd be looking after her - in the early days is possibly a pointer.
Easier to get the family on their side.

Go on - tear my edifice down Aiyoyo! It's a wild card but it would certainly be easier to get help from friends and family?

by **tigger** 15.03.12 13:13

Stella wrote:
tigger wrote:I really can't see a problem with a sub. In the first place - as long as the child knows you and her parents have told her to go with say - 'Gerry' , she will recognize him on being collected, only the first day might be tricky, after that it's going to be routine. I agree and this could account for the unexplained late arrival on the first day and why there was no identity bracelets.

The nannies wouldn't see a problem with a child calling her father by his name.

A child would not call anyone by their name on collection or drop-off, only if you ask them what someones name was and I cannot see that happening. The other way round yes, the adult calling a child by their name, but not child to adult.

The more I find out about Maddie, the more I think the sub was essential. I only see a problem if it had to be arranged during the holiday.

On that premise. How do you think a sub could have been arranged, let's say, to be in place for the morning of the 29th?
It's pretty certain that quite a number of 'doctored' photographs - apart from the poster girl must have been ready for use. (e.g. the Donegal snaps, possibly the Everton shirt, and of course the photogenic child on the poster - would have to have at least a passing resemblance to the sub). Imo done in the UK. So I think the narrative was in place before April - and certainly marketing advice must have been sought prior to the holiday. It was too good to be off the cuff. Then we have all these coincidences such as the IFLG - started up a mere six weeks before 3/5. The psychics in Swansea - possibly connected to the mysterious Swansea number in the phone pings.

I can even see a scenario like this: (just to give a new slant to the problem)
What if:
The plan is to pass Maddie on to a third party and stage a fake abduction with all the frills - Fund, government protection etc. photographs etc. No, I don't think it happened like that.
I agree it's far too risky, it's quite possible that this was either what Kate was told or what she chose to believe. Adding the coloboma would make it safer since it didn't exist and that could have served two purposes, no child would be identified as Maddy so that the new 'parent' would be safe and TM need not travel all over the place to certify whether a child was theirs or not.
A sub will be used to prove her presence in OC. Agree. This is the only explanation for a presence & early death.
Maddie actually does have an accident - through overdosing or whatever. Maybe, or by design.
Plans have to be changed and body is moved to freezer/cellar/wherever. Agree.
Abduction may have been planned for the 2nd, but is moved to the third. It's funny you should say that. There have been a few things I have seen now which makes me think the same.

I think we should never lose sight of the fact that the central figure here - the mover and shaker - is Gerry, not Kate who was pretty well catatonic at the start. I agree with that entirely. You can see the lack of Kate in the creche sheets, yet someone is signing here in most of the week.
It's Gerry and Gerry's ambitions that are the cause of all this. Imo Gerry had very high hopes of gaining a position in life he'd always wanted, something political - international. He already had the political jargon off to a 't'.
He's also a control freak imo. Whereas Kate looks completely washed out these days, Gerry seems to be burning with an enduring fury.
I disagree. I think the answers lie within the Gasper statement and what has happened on previous holidays.
I think they could get out of that, with help from the same source that managed to change the FSS results etc. I think Gerry was extremely ambitious and thinks highly of himself - Kate followed him to NZ, she is the one who was once truly in love with him I think.
I really think the Gaspar's statement cannot be used in court - but the paedo link is definitely a thread through a lot of the 'players'.
I'm rather thinking of the 'people in the know' in 2007 - who'd be aware that the financial balloon was about to burst - were there for a possible investment opportunity. I'm sticking with the nanotechnology of microchipping - it's still very expensive to do, but you'd need financiers, steel magnates and various other business people to set up a working plan. Plus you'd need to run a pilot scheme - with the people who'd be injecting the chips, doctors.
I've lost it for the moment, the Steel Magnolia report on the new century and microchipping convinced me entirely.

Kate's warbling on about the people who'd be looking after her - in the early days is possibly a pointer.
Easier to get the family on their side.

Go on - tear my edifice down Aiyoyo! It's a wild card but it would certainly be easier to get help from friends and family?

[i]

by Guest 15.03.12 14:30

tigger wrote:
Stella wrote:
tigger wrote:I really can't see a problem with a sub. In the first place - as long as the child knows you and her parents have told her to go with say - 'Gerry' , she will recognize him on being collected, only the first day might be tricky, after that it's going to be routine. I agree and this could account for the unexplained late arrival on the first day and why there was no identity bracelets.

The nannies wouldn't see a problem with a child calling her father by his name.

A child would not call anyone by their name on collection or drop-off, only if you ask them what someones name was and I cannot see that happening. The other way round yes, the adult calling a child by their name, but not child to adult.

The more I find out about Maddie, the more I think the sub was essential. I only see a problem if it had to be arranged during the holiday.

On that premise. How do you think a sub could have been arranged, let's say, to be in place for the morning of the 29th?
It's pretty certain that quite a number of 'doctored' photographs - apart from the poster girl must have been ready for use. (e.g. the Donegal snaps, possibly the Everton shirt, and of course the photogenic child on the poster - would have to have at least a passing resemblance to the sub). Imo done in the UK. So I think the narrative was in place before April - and certainly marketing advice must have been sought prior to the holiday. It was too good to be off the cuff. Then we have all these coincidences such as the IFLG - started up a mere six weeks before 3/5. The psychics in Swansea - possibly connected to the mysterious Swansea number in the phone pings.

I can even see a scenario like this: (just to give a new slant to the problem)
What if:
The plan is to pass Maddie on to a third party and stage a fake abduction with all the frills - Fund, government protection etc. photographs etc. No, I don't think it happened like that.
I agree it's far too risky, it's quite possible that this was either what Kate was told or what she chose to believe. Adding the coloboma would make it safer since it didn't exist and that could have served two purposes, no child would be identified as Maddy so that the new 'parent' would be safe and TM need not travel all over the place to certify whether a child was theirs or not.
A sub will be used to prove her presence in OC. Agree. This is the only explanation for a presence & early death.
Maddie actually does have an accident - through overdosing or whatever. Maybe, or by design.
Plans have to be changed and body is moved to freezer/cellar/wherever. Agree.
Abduction may have been planned for the 2nd, but is moved to the third. It's funny you should say that. There have been a few things I have seen now which makes me think the same.

I think we should never lose sight of the fact that the central figure here - the mover and shaker - is Gerry, not Kate who was pretty well catatonic at the start. I agree with that entirely. You can see the lack of Kate in the creche sheets, yet someone is signing here in most of the week.
It's Gerry and Gerry's ambitions that are the cause of all this. Imo Gerry had very high hopes of gaining a position in life he'd always wanted, something political - international. He already had the political jargon off to a 't'.
He's also a control freak imo. Whereas Kate looks completely washed out these days, Gerry seems to be burning with an enduring fury.
I disagree. I think the answers lie within the Gasper statement and what has happened on previous holidays.
I think they could get out of that, with help from the same source that managed to change the FSS results etc. I think Gerry was extremely ambitious and thinks highly of himself - Kate followed him to NZ, she is the one who was once truly in love with him I think.
I really think the Gaspar's statement cannot be used in court - but the paedo link is definitely a thread through a lot of the 'players'.
I'm rather thinking of the 'people in the know' in 2007 - who'd be aware that the financial balloon was about to burst - were there for a possible investment opportunity. I'm sticking with the nanotechnology of microchipping - it's still very expensive to do, but you'd need financiers, steel magnates and various other business people to set up a working plan. Plus you'd need to run a pilot scheme - with the people who'd be injecting the chips, doctors.
I've lost it for the moment, the Steel Magnolia report on the new century and microchipping convinced me entirely.

Kate's warbling on about the people who'd be looking after her - in the early days is possibly a pointer.
Easier to get the family on their side.

Go on - tear my edifice down Aiyoyo! It's a wild card but it would certainly be easier to get help from friends and family?
[i]

Just colouring up your reply as it's getting confused with what I posted and I think it is important to ensure that everyone knows it was your reply and not part of my post.

Your comments in red above.

by Guest 15.03.12 14:46

tigger wrote: I think they could get out of that, with help from the same source that managed to change the FSS results etc. I think Gerry was extremely ambitious and thinks highly of himself - Kate followed him to NZ, she is the one who was once truly in love with him I think.
I really think the Gaspar's statement cannot be used in court - but the paedo link is definitely a thread through a lot of the 'players'.
I'm rather thinking of the 'people in the know' in 2007 - who'd be aware that the financial balloon was about to burst - were there for a possible investment opportunity. I'm sticking with the nanotechnology of microchipping - it's still very expensive to do, but you'd need financiers, steel magnates and various other business people to set up a working plan. Plus you'd need to run a pilot scheme - with the people who'd be injecting the chips, doctors.
I've lost it for the moment, the Steel Magnolia report on the new century and microchipping convinced me entirely.

How could they get out of that? It is a witness statement that the witness herself signed off. You cannot take anything back afterwards. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Just ask Pat Brown.

What makes you think the Gaspar statement "cannot be used in court"? How absurd. It is a witness statement, just like any other witness statement and if Mrs Gaspar is called to testify one day based on what she said, she will have to.

I think you will find it was Gerry who followed Kate to NZ, not the other way round.

I was one of the first people to identify Masonichip and some might think it's a good idea to know where their children are, but most will never allow their children to be treated like their cat or dog. Another 50 years maybe, but not now.

by russiandoll 15.03.12 15:18

To play devil's advocate for a moment:

Apart fron the Gaspar statement, what other evidence is there of a paedo aspect to the disappearance [ apart from the abduction by a paedo aspect ] ?

And if the Gaspar statement is the only evidence, is it strong enough? How do we know that the ref about a crude gesture was def alluding to a child and that there was not just a very off-colour converstion about sexual habits of the partner /s taking place?

How reliable is the Gaspar statement, how long was it made after the disappearance? Could it be the case that without any other evidence, Gaspar's could be written off as spiteful misrepresentation from a woman with a grudge, an axe to grind? What if there had been some kind of ill-feeling from her towards some members of the group for whatever reason?

Not my views, just stating how it could be construed under the circumstances.

by kikoraton 15.03.12 15:26

Other evidence: the very dubious photos, and Corner and Payne's slushy appreciation of Maddie. Who, it seems to me, without make-up applied by adults, was a very ordinary little girl.

by Guest 15.03.12 15:37

Other evidence : Yvonne Martin recognising David Payne, which led to her help being declined. Then there's Gerry's empty CATS registration.

by Guest 15.03.12 15:43

russiandoll wrote:How reliable is the Gaspar statement, how long was it made after the disappearance?

It was taken on the 16th May 2007, giving her enough time to think about the serious ramifications of exactly what her concerns means.

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

Log in for more topics