Birth of Madeleine

The Leicestershire police handed a document to the PJ fifteen days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Therein her date of birth is shown as 12 March 2003 with registration by the McCanns having only taken place on 5 June 2003 – a full 12 weeks later.
 
Madeleine’s date of birth is shown as 12 May 2003 in her passport, the only identity document given to the PJ by her family. It is also the day her birthday is celebrated. Has this anomaly ever been explained?
 
On the night of Madeleine’s “disappearance”, Gerry and Kate made no effort to join the physical search for their “missing” daughter – not even in the immediate vicinity. Thereafter, the composed and swift manner in which Kate but especially Gerry dealt with the loss of their eldest child, remains baffling.
 
Have the McCanns shared any photographs of Kate and Gerry holding their first-born daughter in the hospital shortly after her birth? In Kate’s book ‘MADELEINE’, she mentions that her parents and Nicky visited her on 13 May 2003 in hospital. On the same day Gerry’s parents, his brother and sisters arrived.
 
Have photographs of the proud grandparents at the hospital with new-born Madeleine seen the light? If not, which is the ‘youngest’ available photo of baby Madeleine and how old was she at the time?
 
At which hospital was Madeleine Beth McCann born and was her Birth Certificate ever verified? Which birth date, the 12th March 2003 or  the 12th May 2003, is recorded on the certificate?

Bird131 wrote:The Leicestershire police handed a document to the PJ fifteen days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Therein her date of birth is shown as 12 March 2003 with registration by the McCanns having only taken place on 5 June 2003 – a full 12 weeks later.

Would you be so good as to copy over the Leicestershire police document here on the forum, or at least a link where to find it so I can do it.

Thanks.

Verdi has been sent the original Portuguese article regarding the "12 March 2003" document allegedly handed to the PJ fifteen days after Madeleine disappeared. No doubt he will get to the bottom of its authenticity.
The questions pertaining to the name of the hospital where Madeleine was born and the hospital "family photos", are still of huge interest and the main reason for the post. Any clarity in this regard will be highly appreciated.

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

Sent to me via email by Alan

Personally think this is a lot of nothing and probably just a transcription error with May being taken as Mar somewhere along the line.

Even GM's 'Friends Re-united' post from 2005 quoted her dob as 12/5 and this makes much more sense with registration needed within 42 days, which has therefore occurred in a timely manner.

'The parents never explained.................blah blah blah & why it took three months to register........etc'


Simply nothing to explain as it's all media nonsense.

Thanks Doug D, let's see if Verdi comes up with something tangible. Any comment or knowledge about the hospital name or photos taken in the the hospital? This is the key aim of the post.

or was it just the result of some bad handwriting, 3 or 5, or mar versus may, typed it is pretty easy, but going from notes it are very common mistakes. as a person that is actually able to write neatly, you do not want to have to work from my notes,because they are unreadable . and i have seen the same from colleges who also could produce 'in no way readable forms of script' on paper. and even in 2007 it was usuable to first make a draft by hand, before it was typed up. we even had simple forms to jot down identification information.  

i never have heard any different terms for a birth after artificial techniques have been used. registrations about births, deaths and marriage are usually not modernized. ours are at least based on the past. also for adoption there is no such thing as choice in dates of birth when the child is born in our country, there could be estimates for children from abroad, but that will result in a notation on the paperwork. 

also the dna of madeleine is known, they used the infamous pillowcase, and some time after that they have been able to use the bloodspot card, and that is taken shortly after a birth. madeleine is(or even more correct dna from a source well before and coupled to her name and date of birth taken on the blood spot card is) a biological child of the parents gerry and kate mccann. so there can hardly be something to hide. the markers on the pillowcase are the same as the ones from the pillowcase, so the deposition is made by  a natural female child of gerry and kate mccann. 

madeleine did inherited her own combination of alleles from her parents, and this combination is different from that of the twins. not because the twins are not from the same parents, only the pattern of inheritance is different. each parent has it own combination and only one allele of both is given to their offspring  

so that gives very little mystery in that. there are some pictures of a very young madeleine, not from the hospital but easy to see she is well under 1 years of age. it was the parents and extended family and friends that decided what pictures have become public. most you can say they have a identifiable imprint of the madeleine , when she became older. 

there is one of a very young madeleine on her passport;
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

that passport is from 4 august 2003, and contains a baby picture that correspondents very well with her age when born on 12 may. 

it is indeed possible to use a picture taken much earlier.

but there is a bloodspot card made, and the people who are taking them, do very well know if the child is a new born, or a baby of 2 months of age. 

'On 12 October 2007, the Forensic Science Service(R) received a blood spot in a cardboard frame (object JRB/1) from Leicestershire Constabulary. That object was inside a sealed package.'


jrb/1 is dna of the blood spot card, and sjm/1 is the dna sample from the pillowcase from rothley. both are identical, and that of a biological female child of gerry and kate mccann. not being one of the twins. a very sturdy and commonly used outcome to accept it to be madeleine her dna. if you do not accept the result, because there is no full dna match equal to these both samples found in portugal, and look into a surrogate child to play madeleine, it will mean all other dna results must be expelled. so it means the finding in relation to the dogs are not usable to prove something bad happened to madeleine in 5a,or the car was used in the results of that in any form. meaning you end up empty handed. madeleine herself, or her bodily remains in any form or part thereof had to be present to contribute to these dna results. 


that is the problem i always have with a theoretical surrogate child. 


all about the dna to find in the pj files, made possible by pam!;


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


it is hardly possible to fiddle that together. it is not that easy to find in all those documents, but use the link, use control plus f and copy a least half of the sentence between 'and ' into the search box you get and it will send you to it. 


at least even if something odd happened with the birth dates, madeleine is and was a natural and genetic female child of gerry and kate mccann. even the use of a surrogate mother would not change that. replacement of the egg cell content and replace it with the cell nuclear of the biological mother , would give different mt-dna, or a donor of the exact same mt-dna must be used, and that would mean a female relative from kate her maternal lineage must have been available that still was able to reproduce egg cells. but very unlikely happening in 2002 or 2003. 


the madeleine in portugal must have been the genetic madeleine as born to the parents mccann. a look a like is much easier to find, than a genetic replacement. because a replacement person would made the results in dna, who even now are not of the best quality must be seen as void. you can not have your cake and eat it.


the pillowcase could hypothetically be a set up, but the blood card would be an absolut masterpiece to fiddle with. 

Hi Verdi, I sent the newspaper article to Jill and asked that she forward it to you as I don't have your Email address. I see the article has been posted.

Silentscope wrote:All births in England, Wales and Northern Ireland must be registered within 42 days of the child being born.
You should do this at the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for the area where the baby was born or at the hospital before the mother leaves. The hospital will tell you if you can register the birth there.

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

Thanks Silentscope, any knowledge about photos taken at the hospital or soon thereafter?

CaKeLoveR wrote:The formalities aspect as interesting. I  wouldn't have thought it made much difference, unless a third party was involved.

Thanks CaKeLoveR, any knowledge about photos taken at the hospital or soon thereafter?

Bird131 wrote:Hi Verdi, I sent the newspaper article to Jill and asked that she forward it to you as I don't have your Email address. I see the article has been posted.

Ah I see, I didn't know  On the surface it looks like more media hype - I'll take a closer look later.

Thanks.

crusader wrote:The youngest photo of Madeleine I've seen is in Kates book, Madeleine has a little white sunhat on and a pink dress.
If you have the book, you have probably seen that one.
The other one is her passport photo, she was 3 months old according to the date on it.

Thanks 'crusader', none so far have told of seeing a photo of Madeleine between say 'day 1' and '1 month' old with Kate or Gerry. Very interesting!

Verdi wrote:

Bird131 wrote:Hi Verdi, I sent the newspaper article to Jill and asked that she forward it to you as I don't have your Email address. I see the article has been posted.

Ah, I see.  On the surface it looks like more media hype - I'll take a closer look later.

Thanks.

No, I've had a long hard look and can't find anything of assistance.

To start, photographic evidence of Madeleine McCann following birth or soon after is non existent , at least in the public domain.  Then I'm left wondering why there would be, on the surface it's not really relevant to the investigation into the child's disappearance - not from a police perspective.  The Portuguese investigation did question parentage which was established as Gerry McCann the father and Kate McCann (nee Healy) the mother.

There are a couple of baby photographs to be seen but there is no suggestion as to location, identity nor age - in short useless in terms of moving forward.

The subject of the Portuguese press report claiming the information leak from Leicester Police is another dead end at the moment.  I can't locate a single official, or even quasi official, document to verify the claim.  There are a few references to Leicstershire Constabulary's circumspection as regards the case, like their refusal to divulge any information into the public domain unless it benefits the investigation - routine policing.

Then there is the consideration of Stuart Prior's (of Leicester Constabulary) close involvement in the case - all documented in the PJ files.  It's possible he might have passed on confidential information but in fairness on this occasion I don't think so.  I'm convinced it there were any truth in the press report (or screenshot said to to be such) posted up-page it would have been propagated far and wide by sister press and media, thus widely discussed..

Sorry to say, the British and Portuguese and Spanish press (as a united force?) have published some pretty outrageous reports over the years - most of which have been pure fiction, worse still deception.  A classic case of what you don't know - invent!

Add to that, the allegation doesn't really make any sense.  Madeleine McCann's birth can be so easily traced by anyone in authority, or even the amateur sleuth by way of the UK governments births, marriages and deaths data or available ancestry search websites.

I truly believe this is a non starter but I haven't given up .... yet!

As I repeatedly say, the fading interest in the case of Madeleine McCann is making it very difficult to search the archives,  Even once dedicated websites are now difficult to navigate as they are not maintained effectively.

With the exception of the Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann  we must be sure to keep the flag flying!

Onwards and upwards ....

Thanks Verdi and Silentscope, I truly appreciate.

Thanks 'Justice for Maddie' ([You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]), with the Passport being issued on 04 Aug 2003, the photo might have been taken about mid-July 2003, which means Madeleine was 2 months old at the time.

Still not one clear photo of newly born baby Madeleine, or less than a week-old Madeleine, in the arms of her proud Mum and/or Dad - and that is the point I'm making ... until proved differently. According to Kate, numerous family members arrived at the hospital on the day Madeleine was born, or the day thereafter - also no photos.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Thanks Silentscope ... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ... something similar to this is what is still missing.

Silentscope wrote:But even if you find such a Picture, what is it meant to prove or disprove?

This. I would also add that just because photos aren’t readily available doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. Even in the age of social media, families will have 100’s of photos of their children which they keep private.