Re: Substitute child?

Juliette on Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:24 am

Jean wrote: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.

Thats how I feel too Jean. I believe something happened to Madeleine at the beginning of the holiday so who was attending the creche as 'Madeleine' that week? However outlandish this may seem to some, I don't think the idea of a substitute can be ruled out simply because some people think its a step too far. I think this is an avenue worth exploring and I for one am not ruling it out.

joyce1938 on Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:32 am

it feels like maybe we cant trusy any of the writen altered files about anything ,just seems to give us so much to ponder,over and ove ig=t goes ,like gerry said its good to have confusion,or words to that effect joyce1938

rainbow-fairy on Thu Mar 01, 2012 9:57 am

Juliette wrote:
Jean wrote: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.

Thats how I feel too Jean. I believe something happened to Madeleine at the beginning of the holiday so who was attending the creche as 'Madeleine' that week? However outlandish this may seem to some, I don't think the idea of a substitute can be ruled out simply because some people think its a step too far. I think this is an avenue worth exploring and I for one am not ruling it out.

I agree!
I think the mindset 'It couldn't possibly happen' is a very dangerous one... So many people have said 'Oh, no way could the McCanns have done anything to Maddie - she was their daughter - they are Doctors' blah blah blah - just because one can't envisage something happening doesn't mean it doesn't! The statistics themselves are very clear- 99% of children said to be abducted from the home are actually killed by a family member. I, personally, cannot understand how ANYONE could kill their child but they do. Despite being explained to me repeatedly, I just don't understand how aeroplanes stay up in the sky but they do!
It may seem outlandish, a substitute, but somebody was signed in at the creche every day - if something happened to Maddie earlier in the week, and evidence certainly points that way - then a sub seems the only explanation.
The only other explanation I could think of is signing in but no child being dropped off. This idea doesn't fly though, because 1)I'm sure the creche did head counts and 2)it doesn't explain a child answering to 'Maddie'...

Miraflores on Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:36 am

2)it doesn't explain a child answering to 'Maddie'...

Or not answering to Maddie - because we are repeatedly told by Kate that she only answered to 'Madlun'. This is despite all the posters having Maddie on them, the twins referring to Maddie etc..

rainbow-fairy on Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:10 am

Miraflores wrote:
2)it doesn't explain a child answering to 'Maddie'...

Or not answering to Maddie - because we are repeatedly told by Kate that she only answered to 'Madlun'. This is despite all the posters having Maddie on them, the twins referring to Maddie etc..

Yep indeed. Sorry Miraflores, my mistake - I really should be less lackadaisical and in this instance I should've written 'Madeleine'.
This, actually is IMO probably the most convincing argument for a sub.
We already know that when Team McCann mention a small issue but make a big thing of it, its for a reason. WHY would Kate bother to mention her daughter 'indignantly' stating 'I'm not Maddie. My name is Madeleine' and the proceed to tell us (lie to us) that they themselves NEVER called her 'Maddie'. This is demonstrably false. The twins certainly called her that, Gerry's blog or facebook page called her Maddie. Kate wants us to believe that it was the 'newspapers invention'. Bull! Why would they? They didn't rename Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman ' Hols and Jessy' nor did they call Sarah Payne 'Saz' or 'Sar' - in the case of a missing, likely dead child as a mark of respect they would refer to the child as the parents did, I'm certain of that.
So why the big kerfuffle over 'Maddie'? It is obviously to cover the fact that 'Maddie' had a flip out stating 'My name is not Maddie its Madeleine' - conceivable that the sub WAS only referred to as Madeleine - did a creche worker call her 'Maddie' - or did one of the T9 adults slip up and do so, prompting the outburst?
Either way, the McCanns so blatantly lying over what they called their daughter indicates to me there is a very important reason for them making this so clear... Why???
I just come back to 1)they called their daughter 'Maddie' 2)they have said this to explain why their daughter publicly said 'My name is not Maddie'
Hope this makes some sense, I'm thinking out loud really...

Miraflores on Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:43 am

Digressing slightly: I believe the press did turn James Bulger into 'Jamie Bulger' despite the fact that his mother said he was always called James, so it can be said that the press invents diminutives when it suits them. In the McCann's case though - the family are on record calling Madeleine Maddie, so the blame for that can't be laid at the door of the press.

Kate in her book says that she was always Kate Healey, and yet she signs the creche sheets as Kate McCann. So if she isn't clear about how she herself was known how much reliability can be placed on her statement that Madeleine was never called Maddie?

**HiDeHo** on Thu Mar 01, 2012 12:36 pm

It's very easy to make a blanket statement about the expectations of Madeleine's attendance in the creche according to files and witness statements made after the fact.

However, when one looks at the 'reality' of what may have happened, the circumstances may be very different to what we have been led to believe.

I had the illusion that each 'club' was segregated and each nanny had tight control over the children, similar to that of what we expect from a schooll. Seems I was wrong.

The creche at the reception appears to be one big room that is used by both Lobsters and Sharks, babies club and older children.

I imagined a signing in process that would be used for the security of the children present. As each child arrived, the parents would be greeted by the assigned nanny and the child taken to the group. The nanny would be aware of which children were in her presence at any particular time.

It seems these records may have been primarily used as a means of communication to contact the parents if necessarily.

Unlike a regular kindergaten/school, there were no arrival/departure times required and no 'list' to check that all children were present.

The children arrived and left sporadically and, according to the activity sheet, were not always at the creche building at the times the children arrived so what happened to the children if they arrived when the rest of the group were down at the beach for example? Did they sign the creche sheet and the children went into the creche to join the other group?

Were they refused and could only join the group at the location of the activity where the nanny held the sign in sheet?

How often did the nannies check the creche sheet against the children they were watching?

Did they meet and greet the parents or were the children dropped off and they entered the room on their own as the parents watched?

All of this would, in my opinion, allow for creche sheets that meant very little...not updated under the watchful eye of each nanny and probably not checked against the children's attendance that day, only used as a guide with possible children.

We don't know whether the children on the list attended the activities of that day or whether they were too late and stayed with other nannies.

Prior to this thread I have not thought of the possibility that the reason she was not known as 'Maddie' and would not answer to that name would explain how another child could be mistaken for her. A justification that when her name was used, that 'Madeleine' did not answer.

Not a 'direct' substitute but when ROB and Tanner's daughter was there, she could have been mistaken for Madeleine. (keeping in mind this was BEFORE the 'disappearance' with no reason to look for anything strange or contrived.)

This was the first week or two that newly 'trained' nannies probably concentrated on their job of keeping the children occupied rather than the security of being aware at all times which children were present and which parents belonged to each child.

Genbug on Thu Mar 01, 2012 4:36 pm

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Miraflores wrote:
2)it doesn't explain a child answering to 'Maddie'...

Or not answering to Maddie - because we are repeatedly told by Kate that she only answered to 'Madlun'. This is despite all the posters having Maddie on them, the twins referring to Maddie etc..

Yep indeed. Sorry Miraflores, my mistake - I really should be less lackadaisical and in this instance I should've written 'Madeleine'.
This, actually is IMO probably the most convincing argument for a sub.
We already know that when Team McCann mention a small issue but make a big thing of it, its for a reason. WHY would Kate bother to mention her daughter 'indignantly' stating 'I'm not Maddie. My name is Madeleine' and the proceed to tell us (lie to us) that they themselves NEVER called her 'Maddie'. This is demonstrably false. The twins certainly called her that, Gerry's blog or facebook page called her Maddie. Kate wants us to believe that it was the 'newspapers invention'. Bull! Why would they? They didn't rename Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman ' Hols and Jessy' nor did they call Sarah Payne 'Saz' or 'Sar' - in the case of a missing, likely dead child as a mark of respect they would refer to the child as the parents did, I'm certain of that.
So why the big kerfuffle over 'Maddie'? It is obviously to cover the fact that 'Maddie' had a flip out stating 'My name is not Maddie its Madeleine' - conceivable that the sub WAS only referred to as Madeleine - did a creche worker call her 'Maddie' - or did one of the T9 adults slip up and do so, prompting the outburst?
Either way, the McCanns so blatantly lying over what they called their daughter indicates to me there is a very important reason for them making this so clear... Why???
I just come back to 1)they called their daughter 'Maddie' 2)they have said this to explain why their daughter publicly said 'My name is not Maddie'
Hope this makes some sense, I'm thinking out loud really...

From the witness statement of Charlotte Pennington:

"She adds that it was usual for Madeleine to be called “Maddy”, as this is how she [Madeleine] presented herself to the witness..."

.

tigger on Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:01 pm

This refers back to the video on page one where you should also stop the video at 1.33.

http://www.cranialtech.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=302&Itemid=134

Since I have a bee in my bonnet about the shape of Maddie's head seen sideways - at .50 the photograph certainly looks like a certain deformity of the skull.
I'm not drawing conclusions but these are a few points:
Kate's remark 'Maddie and her fear of pain' - may refer to treatment or operations she may have had.
The condition may also have brought on behavioural problems, sleeplessness etc.
The bags under her eyes are not natural for a toddler.
The scaphocelaphy occurs in different degrees of severity, it would not be visible from the front.

All this argues for a substitute child from day one.

Maddie's health records were denied - certainly to the PJ, probably to LP but also to SY?
Also bear in mind the IVF - were the donors the same in both cases? I don't rate the DNA report since it was 'influenced' by a visit of GB. I would think G is the father of the twins since Sean was getting reddish hair.

Also think of Gerry's remark (see forensic linguistics) 'she is still very active'.

Ribisl on Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:11 pm

I have browsed through the creche records and they are truly fascinating, especially when you compare them with the MCs' telephone trail. Well done Stella thumbup

However I do not believe they constitute an entirely reliable source of information. As HiDeHo and others have pointed out, it appears overall control was pretty slack and set procedures, if they ever existed, were not vigorously followed by the staff. So it's quite possible that the children were coming and going without the staff actually checking and confirming who, when or how they were signed in or out. And under such circumstances I can easily imagine Madeleine and Madalene getting mixed up by some of the staff.

I am still trying to find out some evidence that gives ground to the supposition that something could have happened to Madeleine prior to 1st May when Mrs Fern heard her crying at night. To me the most plausible timeline so far is with Madeleine's death occurring some time between the 2nd and 3rd which would have given the MCs enough time to set the scene for her disappearance. This would also be consistent with the cadaver dogs' findings.