Re: Substitute child?

by Guest 02.03.12 12:47

Juulcy wrote:But has P. Edmonds ever produced his photo?

This is what Philip Edmonds wrote;

"Therefore, I can confirm that whatever information I had (including some photos of my sons taken on the day Madeleine disappeared, which showed her in the background) was passed both to the police and to the McCanns at the time".

And were there independent reliable witnesses who saw Madeleine at her last high tea? Not discounting the substitute child theory, just asking..

That is something that Goncalo Amaral would have checked out. Possible witnesses he may have spoken to would be;

Catriona Baker - nanny

Shinead Vine - nanny

Emma Wilding - nanny

"When questioned she states that she knows Madeline's parents because although Madeleine is not in her group, she frequently speaks to her parents"

Then there is the parents of all the other children sitting there during high tea.

The kitchen staff and those who brought the food to the table.

If Goncalo Amaral said she was accounted for at 5.30 on the 3rd and the PJ report also confirms that, then I think this is a certainty.

by russiandoll 02.03.12 12:55

p 26 "Our daughter was perfect. A beautiful round head, no marks, and not at all squashed. Big, brown eyes and a lovely, compact little body. The most wonderful thing I had ever set eyes on. I loved her instantly."

The coloboma would have been visible but isn't mentioned - just a short time later in the Piers Morgan interview it was 'deleted'.

even if not visible for weeks or months.....there is no mention in the entire book , not even of a fleck... a book called Madeleine ...and this mark her daughter's most distinguishing physical feature. I would have expected to learn a whole lot more about this little girl, but she existed like a shadow in her own story.

by russiandoll 02.03.12 13:20

So are you now leaning towards death on 3rd like GA, rather than earlier......and no sub? a bit confused [ and tired]

by Guest 02.03.12 13:31

russiandoll wrote: So are you now leaning towards death on 3rd like GA, rather than earlier......and no sub? a bit confused [ and tired]

No, absolutely not.

I'm just trying to show people that if they think that the phone activity and dodgy creche sheets suggests something happened to her earlier in the week. It matters not at this stage when. The only way there could have been a child seen on the 3rd of May at 5.30, was for there to be another little girl playing her part.

5 or 6 independent witnesses, could not be wrong. Especially when one of them is a multi millionaire, completely unknown to any of the tapas group and is also the nephew of senior Labour Minister.

by rainbow-fairy 02.03.12 13:31

russiandoll wrote: So are you now leaning towards death on 3rd like GA, rather than earlier......and no sub? a bit confused [ and tired]

Seconded.
What has caused this turnaround Stella? Everyone has the right to change their mind but you've always championed the 'sub' idea so strongly (and convincingly) that I must admit I'm very surprised?

by Guest 02.03.12 13:42

If anyone else can offer a sensible suggestion as to how a dead child could possibly be somewhere having her photo taken, after her death, then please let me know.

I'm open to all other possibilities. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by rainbow-fairy 02.03.12 13:43

Stella wrote:
russiandoll wrote: So are you now leaning towards death on 3rd like GA, rather than earlier......and no sub? a bit confused [ and tired]

No, absolutely not.

I'm just trying to show people that if they think that the phone activity and dodgy creche sheets suggests something happened to her earlier in the week. It matters not at this stage when. The only way there could have been a child seen on the 3rd of May at 5.30, was for there to be another little girl playing her part.

5 or 6 independent witnesses, could not be wrong. Especially when one of them is a multi millionaire, completely unknown to any of the tapas group and is also the nephew of senior Labour Minister.

Sorry Stella I'm even more confused now! Not suggesting that is your fault - like russiandoll I am tired too :)

by Guest 02.03.12 13:46

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Stella wrote:
russiandoll wrote: So are you now leaning towards death on 3rd like GA, rather than earlier......and no sub? a bit confused [ and tired]

No, absolutely not.

I'm just trying to show people that if they think that the phone activity and dodgy creche sheets suggests something happened to her earlier in the week. It matters not at this stage when. The only way there could have been a child seen on the 3rd of May at 5.30, was for there to be another little girl playing her part.

5 or 6 independent witnesses, could not be wrong. Especially when one of them is a multi millionaire, completely unknown to any of the tapas group and is also the nephew of senior Labour Minister.
Sorry Stella I'm even more confused now! Not suggesting that is your fault - like russiandoll I am tired too :)

There is nothing confusing about it at all. Do dead people usually play and have their photo taken?

by **tigger** 02.03.12 14:03

I just as confused as RD and RF..

What makes you so totally convinced that it is Madeleine in that photograph? Have you actually seen these photographs? And didn't you argue against them some months ago, saying that they would have been taken at far to great a distance to determine whether it was Maddie or not?

Does it then look if the creche record topic is redundant and we're all going to go back to an accident on the 3rd?
I for one, won't.

by Guest 02.03.12 14:10

tigger wrote:I just as confused as RD and RF.. Now there's a surprise.

What makes you so totally convinced that it is Madeleine in that photograph? Have you actually seen these photographs? And didn't you argue against them some months ago, saying that they would have been taken at far to great a distance to determine whether it was Maddie or not?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Are you saying Philip Edmonds is lying? Why would he do that?

Whether or not you could see her in the photograph or not, is irrelevant. A high profile witness said she was. Well the child he thought to be Madeleine McCann was. Which kind of proves a point really.

Does it then look if the creche record topic is redundant and we're all going to go back to an accident on the 3rd?

You can if it you want to. I'm sticking with an earlier date.

by **tigger** 02.03.12 14:13

tigger wrote:I just as confused as RD and RF..

What makes you so totally convinced that it is Madeleine in that photograph? Have you actually seen these photographs? And didn't you argue against them some months ago, saying that they would have been taken at far to great a distance to determine whether it was Maddie or not?

Does it then look if the creche record topic is redundant and we're all going to go back to an accident on the 3rd?
I for one, won't.

You missed my last four words Stella.

by **tigger** 02.03.12 14:17

[quote="Stella"]

tigger wrote:I just as confused as RD and RF.. Now there's a surprise.

What makes you so totally convinced that it is Madeleine in that photograph? Have you actually seen these photographs? And didn't you argue against them some months ago, saying that they would have been taken at far to great a distance to determine whether it was Maddie or not?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Are you saying Philip Edmonds is lying? Why would he do that?

Whether or not you could see her in the photograph or not, is irrelevant. A high profile witness said she was. Well the child he thought to be Madeleine McCann was. Which kind of proves a point really.

Does it then look if the creche record topic is redundant and we're all going to go back to an accident on the 3rd?

You can if it you want to. I'm sticking with an earlier date.

[/quote

]

I did imply that Philip Edmonds is lying and I clearly did not say that - he could simply be mistaken. I said: didn't you argue against them some months ago, saying that they would have been taken at far to great a distance to determine whether it was Maddie or not?

by Guest 02.03.12 14:22

tigger wrote:
tigger wrote:I just as confused as RD and RF..

What makes you so totally convinced that it is Madeleine in that photograph? Have you actually seen these photographs? And didn't you argue against them some months ago, saying that they would have been taken at far to great a distance to determine whether it was Maddie or not?

Does it then look if the creche record topic is redundant and we're all going to go back to an accident on the 3rd?
I for one, won't.

You missed my last four words Stella.

I don't think so. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

More from Philip Edmond's reply to Tony:

"Having been in Portugal at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance and seen all of the events first hand, there is not one shred of doubt in my mind that the events as reported were correct. In fact one of the most terrible parts of this tragedy is that there are people out there who are questioning this, just adding further to the nightmare that the McCann family have suffered. I cannot imagine anything crueller".

by **tigger** 02.03.12 14:25

Stella on Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:11 am

Tony Bennett wrote:

Dear Mr Bennett,
I am in receipt of your letter of 22 July regarding Madeleine McCann. I am sure you would appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment too much, as we do not know each other, and I have no idea what your connection to the case is. However, I would also not want further conspiracy theories to fester by simply ignoring your letter.
Therefore, I can confirm that whatever information I had (including some photos of my sons taken on the day Madeleine disappeared, which showed her in the background) was passed both to the police and to the McCanns at the time. Having been in Portugal at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance and seen all of the events first hand, there is not one shred of doubt in my mind that the events as reported were correct.
In fact one of the most terrible parts of this tragedy is that there are people out there who are questioning this, just adding further to the nightmare that the McCann family have suffered. I cannot imagine anything crueller.
I’m afraid I won’t enter into further correspondence on this matter with you.
Yours sincerely,
Philip Edmonds

This is rather odd statement to make. Mr Edmonds boys were 6, 7 & 8 years of age at that time. They were not in the same creche group as Madeleine. Madeleine was never taken to the evening Tapas restaurant. At lunch time, the McCanns' claim to have eaten back at their apartment. So how did these children come to be in the same picture as Madeleine?

______________________________________________

by Guest 02.03.12 14:26

tigger wrote:

Stella on Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:11 am

Tony Bennett wrote:

Dear Mr Bennett,
I am in receipt of your letter of 22 July regarding Madeleine McCann. I am sure you would appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment too much, as we do not know each other, and I have no idea what your connection to the case is. However, I would also not want further conspiracy theories to fester by simply ignoring your letter.
Therefore, I can confirm that whatever information I had (including some photos of my sons taken on the day Madeleine disappeared, which showed her in the background) was passed both to the police and to the McCanns at the time. Having been in Portugal at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance and seen all of the events first hand, there is not one shred of doubt in my mind that the events as reported were correct.
In fact one of the most terrible parts of this tragedy is that there are people out there who are questioning this, just adding further to the nightmare that the McCann family have suffered. I cannot imagine anything crueller.
I’m afraid I won’t enter into further correspondence on this matter with you.
Yours sincerely,
Philip Edmonds

This is rather odd statement to make. Mr Edmonds boys were 6, 7 & 8 years of age at that time. They were not in the same creche group as Madeleine. Madeleine was never taken to the evening Tapas restaurant. At lunch time, the McCanns' claim to have eaten back at their apartment. So how did these children come to be in the same picture as Madeleine?

And your point is?

by **tigger** 02.03.12 14:30

I've passed this exchange on to a moderator and will not answer any posts until I have heard from the moderator.

by russiandoll 02.03.12 14:41

Who was the little girl that was signed out of creche at 5.30 on the 3rd, who also attended high tea with all the other children and their parents.

Goncalo Amaral was quite confident that Madeleine was still alive by then.

Yet we still have people talking of death before that time, but never explain how that is even possible.

Stella I think this can quite simply be cleared up. It was this part of your post I found confusing....you appear in a later post to maintain a position of death before 3rd and state the obvious.: a dead child can't play or exist to be photographed..so you appear to be still of the firm opinion a sub was used. You replied to me that you absolutely were not arguing now for death accidental or otherwise 3rd May....but earlier...you clearly state that.
It is the it in bold that confused me...you appear to be critical of that same position... I thought you and others had argued quite convincingly in the creche enquiry area that there were forgeries and alterations in the sheets and that a sub was used.
It was this bold part I needed you to clarify..are you simply saying that there was probably a sub but that we have not yet made a convincing or persuasive case for this theory?

I must say I am surprised at a little dig you appeared to have at Tigger.... you were not surprised by something that was posted..it read a little sarcastic to say the least. Tigger and Rainbow Fairy plus me show 3 people who are a bit confused....will you please consider that it is not us creating confusion, but it is the lack of clarity with the way your post was worded? It is a simple communication issue that needs clarifying, that is all.
I had better not post for while till this is sorted, I asked a simple question and it is descending into a disagreement. I dont want a repeat of a couple of weeks ago when we ended up losing JD and Daisy and you got offended.

by Guest 02.03.12 14:44

Stella, I have to admit that I am confused to. You have subscribed to the theory for months that there was a substitute, and that something happened to MM earlier. Then you come on and post that Goncalo theory is correct that she was around until 5.30 on May 3rd. Posters were only questioning what you meant, and as I have said I to am confused.

by Guest 02.03.12 14:54

I think what Stella is trying to do is show that if you believe that Madeleine had died before the evening of 3 May, then how can there be an explanation for sightings of Madeleine on 3rd May unless there was a substitute or case of mistaken identity that had lasted all week.

Remember the nanny Cat Edwards states categorically that she saw Madeleine on 3 May both in her initial statement and her later rogatory statement.

by Guest 02.03.12 14:56

candyfloss wrote:Stella, I have to admit that I am confused to. You have subscribed to the theory for months that there was a substitute, and that something happened to MM earlier. Then you come on and post that Goncalo theory is correct that she was around until 5.30 on May 3rd. Posters were only questioning what you meant, and as I have said I to am confused.

Goncalo only confirmed a little girl everyone thought was Madeleine was alive at 5.30 on the 3rd.

But can anyone prove that this was the child born as Madeleine Beth McCann, the biological daughter of Kate and Gerry McCann?

by Guest 02.03.12 14:59

Thank you alison. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] It is not a trick question, but one of logic.

by Juliette 02.03.12 15:13

alison wrote: I think what Stella is trying to do is show that if you believe that Madeleine had died before the evening of 3 May, then how can there be an explanation for sightings of Madeleine on 3rd May unless there was a substitute or case of mistaken identity that had lasted all week.

Remember the nanny Cat Edwards states categorically that she saw Madeleine on 3 May both in her initial statement and her later rogatory statement.

Yes alison that's my take on what Stella said too. Not in the least confusing.

by **tigger** 02.03.12 15:42

zodiac wrote:
Juulcy wrote:Hi zodiac, I can't find it now, but we already discussed the topic of brown eyes. Apparently it is a typo, and Kate writes : big big eyes, and not big brown eyes. I don't have her book, but someone can surely verify it.

Juulcy,

Thanks. I forgot I had a copy of the book and have just checked. It does say:

Big, big eyes

Sorry, I quoted PeterMac who has the book and it was quite a way back. I think he corrected it later - I don't have the book myself.
But even so, big, big eyes would have shown a big coloboma.....

by **tigger** 02.03.12 15:45

Juliette wrote:
alison wrote: I think what Stella is trying to do is show that if you believe that Madeleine had died before the evening of 3 May, then how can there be an explanation for sightings of Madeleine on 3rd May unless there was a substitute or case of mistaken identity that had lasted all week.

Remember the nanny Cat Edwards states categorically that she saw Madeleine on 3 May both in her initial statement and her later rogatory statement.

Yes alison that's my take on what Stella said too. Not in the least confusing.

Stella wrote at 12.32:

You assume that death was around the 2nd - 3rd;

Then who was the little girl in Philip Edmonds photo taken on the 3rd, who he claims was Madeleine? This is the nephew of Lady Margaret Hodge MP. A relative of the Oppenheimer family. Someone who would be very respected in court.

Who was the little girl that was signed out of creche at 5.30 on the 3rd, who also attended high tea with all the other children and their parents.

Goncalo Amaral was quite confident that Madeleine was still alive by then.

Yet we still have people talking of death before that time, but never explain how that is even possible.
unquote

That's what I found confusing and I wasn't the only one.

_______________________________________________

by Ribisl 02.03.12 21:39

Stella wrote:
Ribisl wrote: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 [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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.

You assume that death was around the 2nd - 3rd;

Then who was the little girl in Philip Edmonds photo taken on the 3rd, who he claims was Madeleine? This is the nephew of Lady Margaret Hodge MP. A relative of the Oppenheimer family. Someone who would be very respected in court.

Who was the little girl that was signed out of creche at 5.30 on the 3rd, who also attended high tea with all the other children and their parents.

Goncalo Amaral was quite confident that Madeleine was still alive by then.

Yet we still have people talking of death before that time, but never explain how that is even possible.

Hi Stella. No, I don't assume the death occurred then. I am simply trying to string together whatever evidence that is available to see whether or not the idea of a substitute is credible at all.

I go back to what I said at the beginning of this thread that we need to focus 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?

If the answer to both is yes, then one could draw a conclusion that there might indeed have been a substitute.

I admit this kind of exercise may be beyond the scope of what we could achieve in a forum. But I just felt there was almost too much information, true or false, that gave rise to so many speculations on our part, and if we could study them more systematically without losing our focus, then maybe we might get to see a clearer picture. That's why I believe what you are doing wrt creche records, for example, is the right way to approach this whole mystery and fully support it.

Log in for more topics