Re: How Maddie's creche attendance was "arranged"

by littlepixie on 25.11.10 22:53

Thanks Tony, that sort of makes it a bit clearer.
Pre-planned - I had never thought about that before.

OMG!

by **Jill Havern** on 25.11.10 22:57

@littlepixie wrote:Thanks Tony, that sort of makes it a bit clearer.
Pre-planned - I had never thought about that before.

OMG!

I've always thought this was pre-planned.

by Rainbow on 25.11.10 23:27

Seems way too far fetched to me,why the heck would they want to do away with her and why go through such a ridiculous charade when far too much could go wrong (not least that the substitute Madeleine could give the game away at any moment)? Why not do it at home where they would be in familiar surroundings and where they at least speak the language,it could easily have been made to look like an accident.All this is just way to X-files and off the wall for me I'm afraid.

by ufercoffy on 25.11.10 23:28

Am loving your siggy Rainbow, do you like mine?

by littlepixie on 25.11.10 23:30

"it could easily have been made to look like an accident."

All depends on what "IT" was.

by Autumn on 26.11.10 0:18

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
@littlepixie wrote:Thanks Tony, that sort of makes it a bit clearer.
Pre-planned - I had never thought about that before.

OMG!

I've always thought this was pre-planned.

I fall into that camp too, a very interesting thread thanks for all your work here Kikoraton and Stella
roses

Adding to Tony's list - Kate's feeling, prior to the holiday, that something bad was going to happen that week. On arrival, didn't Kate confide to Fiona that she still had a bad feeling about the week ahead?

by soulthief on 26.11.10 1:28

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
@littlepixie wrote:Thanks Tony, that sort of makes it a bit clearer.
Pre-planned - I had never thought about that before.

OMG!

I've always thought this was pre-planned.

Me too, I even have a suggestion for a motive, do you have a motive in mind?

by tiny on 26.11.10 6:57

but what about all the pics of Madeleine the mccanns put out,why has,nt any one said "hold on thats not madeleine who was in the creche"

by Cheshire Cat on 26.11.10 7:43

@soulthief wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
@littlepixie wrote:Thanks Tony, that sort of makes it a bit clearer.
Pre-planned - I had never thought about that before.

OMG!

I've always thought this was pre-planned.
Me too, I even have a suggestion for a motive, do you have a motive in mind?

I don't think Tony is convinced it was pre-planned, he was just summarising the suggestions on this thread.

The complexity of the theory discussed here would suggest that pre-planning was necessary but I am not convinced there was or could have been a substitute Maddie!!!

I don't think it was pre-planned although you could argue that a child who has the misfortune to be discussed by David Payne and Gerry (according to K.Gaspar) was always going to be at risk of something 'bad' happening.

You have to wonder if any other children will be 'abducted' in the future?

by Shibboleth on 26.11.10 8:12

There was a story about a child in the McCann's extended family, being "abducted" a few years ago at an airport. I forget the details now, I think it was Moyra somebody at Bangkok airport but as I am relying on memory here, I could be wrong. I always suspected that that might have been a "trial run", as it were.

by kikoraton on 26.11.10 8:31

I have to go out, so I shan't have time until later to take a look at Tony's summary of my theory. I suppose it's a good thing for a sympathetic observer to have attempted a summary.
Yes, after arriving at my theory, that was the first moment when I seriously thought that this must have been pre-planned.
If it really did happen like this, then it required a high degree of cunning. But I'd invite those who say "nah, that's way too complicated" to go back to the top of page 45 and read my theory again - regarding the arrival of the two girls at creche, and the signing-in. It's not really that complicated. It's not as though they had a security guard at the signing-in point. It would all have been fairly chaotic and informal.

by Autumn on 26.11.10 10:34

@Shibboleth wrote:There was a story about a child in the McCann's extended family, being "abducted" a few years ago at an airport. I forget the details now, I think it was Moyra somebody at Bangkok airport but as I am relying on memory here, I could be wrong. I always suspected that that might have been a "trial run", as it were.

That rings bells with too Shibboleth, anyone else remember reading about this?

by Guest on 26.11.10 10:54

@Autumn wrote:
@Shibboleth wrote:There was a story about a child in the McCann's extended family, being "abducted" a few years ago at an airport. I forget the details now, I think it was Moyra somebody at Bangkok airport but as I am relying on memory here, I could be wrong. I always suspected that that might have been a "trial run", as it were.

That rings bells with too Shibboleth, anyone else remember reading about this?

I remember it to, although such a long time ago, and my memory is awful. I do remember googling for a whole day trying to come up with something about it and nothing came up at all, so I don't know if it was a WUM or if there was ever any truth in the story.

by littlepixie on 26.11.10 10:57

@Autumn wrote:
@Shibboleth wrote:There was a story about a child in the McCann's extended family, being "abducted" a few years ago at an airport. I forget the details now, I think it was Moyra somebody at Bangkok airport but as I am relying on memory here, I could be wrong. I always suspected that that might have been a "trial run", as it were.

That rings bells with too Shibboleth, anyone else remember reading about this?

I remember reading it too, but don't know if it was myth or not.

by Autumn on 26.11.10 11:02

Morning Candyfloss
So many things from the early days have been whoosh-clunked. There was a story about Gerry's sister's boyfriend involved in a drug murder (think he was the victim) but strangely everything about the case has since been removed.

by Guest on 26.11.10 11:25

Autumn,

Never ceases to amaze me how much information about this case that was available early on has been whooshed, has this ever happened before. Who has the power to tell people to whoosh these articles, videos etc. and why do they comply with the requests if the material isn't libellous?

by listener on 26.11.10 12:26

Didn't Gerry say he "wasn't there to enjoy himself" or similar - on the airport bus video when asked to "cheer-up Gerry" ?
I never understood how that video came out? e.g. WHO put it into public domain - and WHY?

by Cheshire Cat on 26.11.10 12:49

@listener wrote:Didn't Gerry say he "wasn't there to enjoy himself" or similar - on the airport bus video when asked to "cheer-up Gerry" ?
I never understood how that video came out? e.g. WHO put it into public domain - and WHY?

I believe clip was released officially at the time but it was edited to show the children on the bus. Then the extended version came along that featured grumpy Gerry!

I believe Gerry was on his way to Praria Da Luz to participate in a business meeting along with many of the other folk staying at the Ocean Club (e.g. Weinberger and some of the financiers). Perhaps a project with commercial and defence sensitivities, perhaps to discuss a patent or innovation in the field of medical diagnostics / defence. Pretty dull but important stuff.

When something happened to Madeleine (she may have initially been fatally injured?) perhaps the cover-up began (and I mean a cover-up of the event / meeting / conference as well as Madeleine).

I think there would have been enough to deal with without finding a child to fill Maddies shoes. What if the child became sick in the Creche - the staff would have contacted.... Gerry? I am not saying that the Creche records were not altered to demonstrate Maddie was present but I think the search for a substitute Maddie will prove fruitless.

Just my thoughts of course: people should think, think and think some more about this case!!!!

by listener on 26.11.10 13:20

[/quote]Then the extended version came along that featured grumpy Gerry![/quote]

That's the bit I have always wondered about - WHO allowed that particular bit? PJ? Whoever took the video? UK police?
Why would that bit, which shows him in such poor light, not be edited out?
And you say that the bit showing him grumpy "came along later"! I cannot grasp why it was not edited.

by kikoraton on 26.11.10 13:37

"What if the child became sick in the Creche - the staff would have contacted.... Gerry?"
Yes, exactly. To all intents and purposes, whilst the creche children were all together, this substitute Madeleine was his and Kate's child. It was their telephone number that was given. And they are doctors!! It's really not such a difficult trick to pull off.

by Guest on 26.11.10 13:39

@kikoraton wrote:
Yes, after arriving at my theory, that was the first moment when I seriously thought that this must have been pre-planned.
If it really did happen like this, then it required a high degree of cunning. But I'd invite those who say "nah, that's way too complicated" to go back to the top of page 45 and read my theory again - regarding the arrival of the two girls at creche, and the signing-in. It's not really that complicated. It's not as though they had a security guard at the signing-in point. It would all have been fairly chaotic and informal.

I agree. As deception goes, it would have been very easy to pull this one off. Other peoples children are often picked up and dropped off here, there and everywhere, on a normal school day. The hardest part was finding a suitable candidate to fill Madeleine's shoes. But if you think about it, there were well over a 100 names on the OC daily lists, if not more. Gerry's signatures proves that they knew of other people out there, which would increase the number of other children available.

For me the strongest clue yet that Madeleine had been replaced at some point, was with a comment made by the tapas receptionist.

"She remembers that on Sunday 29th April one of the elements of the group arrived with the child Madeleine McCann, she does not know his name and can only say that he was male and tall and thin and that he approached her to request a booking for the whole group, for the whole week and always at 20.30. When questioned, she confirms that the man was not the father of the girl but one of the members of the group whom was often seen in his company."

The girl that was used by Gerry to enter the creche, must have been the exact same child who was taken to book the tapas, which is why the receptionist said that this child was not with "the father".

There has to be a very good reason why everyone lied and said Rachel made that booking. Not just to protect this man, but to protect the identity of that child.

by Rainbow on 26.11.10 13:54

@soulthief wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
@littlepixie wrote:Thanks Tony, that sort of makes it a bit clearer.
Pre-planned - I had never thought about that before.

OMG!

I've always thought this was pre-planned.
Me too, I even have a suggestion for a motive, do you have a motive in mind?

What do you think the motive was soulthief?

by YNG on 26.11.10 16:23

@Tony Bennett wrote:I've re-read this thread and have pondered about a few things.

Let us accept for a moment the 'kiko' hypothesis is correct: that Dr Gerald McCann took another Madeleine and Elizabeth Naylor to the creche and forged the signature of one or the other Robert Naylor.

One question then that has been barely touched on in the 45 pages so far is: What happened to the substitute Madeleine after the creche closed on the night of Thursday 3 May?

Because, for sure, that Madeleine could not have been at the creche on the morning of Friday 4 May.

Is it worth considering Antonio Cardoso'a ( the taxi driver's ) statement , though I'm not sure whether it is withheld ?

by Guest on 26.11.10 16:32

Exactly YNG, that would explain how and when the substitute Madeleine left.

Which will coincide with their flights back home and why the alarm was raised after that. yes

by kikoraton on 26.11.10 16:43

Most holiday-makers with MW had reserved a package with specified flights in and out. Without naming names, one family have the note on their booking which reads "no flights or transfers required". That's a bit unusual, for an MW holiday. And others which are "owner bookings" have no indication of flight numbers or method of travel. That leaves quite a lot of latitude for people wanting to travel independently.
But yes, of course, any substitute must have made herself scarce during the evening of 3 May.

Log in for more topics