The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Substitute child?

Page 5 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

can someone kindly post the photo of child outside unknown apartment.

Post by bobbin on 08.03.12 18:24

Hi all, I've checked through the whole thread and can't find the photo of the child outside the unknown apartment.

Could someone please post it up, or a reference to it. Thanks.

bobbin

Posts : 2051
Reputation : 142
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Guest on 08.03.12 19:05

@bobbin wrote:Hi all, I've checked through the whole thread and can't find the photo of the child outside the unknown apartment.

Could someone please post it up, or a reference to it. Thanks.

Hi Bobbin,

this is the photo. It's discussed in the Slumber Club topic on Stella's section

avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

toes pointing outwards

Post by bobbin on 08.03.12 19:49

Thank you Stewie, and yes, Ribisl, the feet do look to be turning out, not the stance we have seen on any photos that we have come to believe are of Madeleine.

Also the stance looks to be 'leaning back' a little, more to my mind, like the Payne daughter's stance, but it is nigh on impossible to see with the black as it is.

Am looking forward to discovering what Goncalo Amaral seems to have been holding back on.

bobbin

Posts : 2051
Reputation : 142
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by aiyoyo on 09.03.12 4:30

Since this thread is the debate about "for" or "against" sub, I am arguing against.
Personally if anyone were to ask my opinion, I dont believe a sub was used.

That would involve too many outside factors - messy, complicating, and risky - not something control freak like the mccanns would subject themselves to - that's first point. We are talking about a manipulative pair here, but manipulative clever and not manipulative stupid.
Another point being it is neither feasible nor plausible. When you have a 'dead' body of a loved one on your hand your priority would be to get it out of your roof within 24 hours, whether that is undertaken by funeral director or by yourself (in the case of homicide). That would be the normal psychology of normal people. Despite mccanns' manifest flaws and arrogance they are still 'normal...ish' people and not psychopath killer and they did love Madeleine I believe, though I suspect not unconditionally and not for Madeleine as she was.

Unlike stranger homicide where disposal is done in haste anyhow without regard or respect for the victim 'cos no-emotion was involved; one would imagine where domestic homicide is concerned, especially in this particular case of a small innocence, hapless, and harmless child, at the very least a decent burial would be considered by her parents.

If Maddie had died as early as people purported then the mccanns' turmoil mind would be pre-occupied with getting rid of body and forensics and not charade with a substitute. Domestic homicide, unlike known criminal or stranger homicide, there is usually no criminal database or outside witness to tie them to the crime, the need to dispose of the 'body' though inevitable as well, would not have the same pressing level as a stranger homicide. Nonetheless IMV it will done within 24 hours. Generally when faced with death of a loved one at home people will try to arrange for funeral parlour service and get everything done within half a day and anyway not beyond 24 hours, and I believe this works the same way even of death as a result of domestic homicide. I
f Maddie had died as early as people purported then where would Mccanns have left her body and who would agree to sub for them?

Anyhow I find it hard to believe anyone would leave a corpse in situ beyond 24 hours for a simple logic the last thing perpetrators would want is to have the 'body' spend another night with them, or rather the other way round - the mccanns wouldnt want to spend another nigh with the 'body' under their roof. Apart from being unable to go to sleep with a body in the next room, there are other psychological factors - the initial panic would turn to real fear of being discovered and all sorts will play on their mind.

Although 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. At worst the creche register is a piece of sloppy documentation which no nanny or parent pays any particular attention to, so long as the children are signed in and out. Maddie was likely not in the creche on 3/5, but as to how to explain the discrepancy from the nannie's witnesses statement I haven't worked that out yet.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by tigger on 09.03.12 6:53

Aiyoyo,
I agree that a sub will only work if it was done as from the first day. Which opens a can of worms. But I'm still open to that possibility because I do believe there was something noticeable wrong with Maddie. Nothing disfiguring, but something which would be unusual and obvious enough to not confuse her with another child.

But I totally agree that there must be as few players as possible.
I'm however, convinced of planning - possibly as far ahead as six months or so.
And I'm also convinced it was about money and status. All we need to do is see where the money went.

Murat is key imo. As from the date he booked his flight. But I don't think he got his hands dirty, just had keys and contacts.
For me it's TM, Murat, GB. Those are the key players. O yes, BK - as they say in US cop films, I like him. A lot.
All the rest are extras - unfortunately with speaking parts.

As for the sub, a small child will easily go along with lots of people, especially when she's told by her parents. The sub's father may be on the square, owe G something or had an ulterior money motive. People keep forgetting that the financial soufflé was about to sink in 2007.

So you'd have a core, an inner circle of no more than 4 or 5 and a circle of 'witnesses' friends, family all facilitators. And further circles of bandwagon jumpers, psychics, attention seekers beyond that.

She may have been sedated most of the time and died on the 1st. The 2nd is for me the date of 'handover' and I don't think either of the McCanns did anything personally. I think that was arranged by Murat . Dr. Roberts analysis of the 2nd is interesting.



____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Miraflores on 09.03.12 8:08

I am sure they did love her, but even the best parents get exasperated at times and worn to a frazzle by their children and we have been told that Madeleine was demanding.

I am in agreement with Aiyoyo that the creche records were sloppily kept; (I believe that MW have 'form' in this area), and I question how much credence can be put on them.

For me Kate's curious statement 'They've taken her' is something which merits further attention. Who is the 'they'? Was Madeleine in their care, when she was 'taken'? In which case there really might have been an abduction although not by some random passing stranger.
avatar
Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by tigger on 09.03.12 8:58

@Miraflores wrote:I am sure they did love her, but even the best parents get exasperated at times and worn to a frazzle by their children and we have been told that Madeleine was demanding.

I am in agreement with Aiyoyo that the creche records were sloppily kept; (I believe that MW have 'form' in this area), and I question how much credence can be put on them.

For me Kate's curious statement 'They've taken her' is something which merits further attention. Who is the 'they'? Was Madeleine in their care, when she was 'taken'? In which case there really might have been an abduction although not by some random passing stranger.

On the basis of the evidence, 'they've taken her' can only refer to a dead body.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Guest on 09.03.12 9:33

@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.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by russiandoll on 09.03.12 9:45

from Tigger's post :


On the basis of the evidence, 'they've taken her' can only refer to a dead body.

If that is the case, was Kate's panic real, had she returned to the apartment to spend time with her deceased child and did she find that the body had been removed?

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by tigger on 09.03.12 11:00

@russiandoll wrote:from Tigger's post :


On the basis of the evidence, 'they've taken her' can only refer to a dead body.

If that is the case, was Kate's panic real, had she returned to the apartment to spend time with her deceased child and did she find that the body had been removed?

Miraflores didn't take the dogs' evidence into account - neither the impossible timeline of the 3rd. So that's why I said that.

I think the removal was at the latest on the 2nd. There was the cleaning to do. It is possible that she died just after the crying episode on the first, but in that case it's even more heartless than I already fear.
If she died on the night of the 1st - the cleaning lady was due on Wednesday the 2nd. She may have been hidden in the 'blue bag' in the wardrobe for that reason. Murat was in PdL as from the 1st.

The crying episode is the obstacle. I did read that Philomena said that Gerry was very fond of playing tricks on people and particularly good at card tricks.
I still don't put it beyond reasonable doubt that the crying was a recording. Because Kate was likely in 5a at the time, Five or six calls and two minutes after these calls ceased, the crying started. The crying stopped the moment Mrs. Fenn heard the patio doors. We've discussed the usual pattern of comforting a crying child, it doesn't stop abruptly.
Perhaps we should work out a theory with and one without the crying episode. If it was a trick, it worked.

They've taken her', was simply the plot line, just like 'That dingo's taken my baby!'.
Do we have similar ones for e.g. Baby Lisa? The Anthony case?

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Ribisl on 09.03.12 11:31

I agree with Aiyoyo. The idea of a sub is highly improbable imo for various reasons already mentioned. I too believe Madeleine must have died earlier on the 3rd, possibly while GM was still playing tennis. I agree with Stella that there wouldn't have been enough time for the body to remain in the apartment long enough for the cadaver odour to register then taken out to a hiding place, and for the team to clean the apartment and dispose of any incriminating evidence before alerting the police - if one assumes Kate found the body only when she raised alarm. It is feasible however if she died sometime after leaving the creche when she was alone with Kate and the twins.

I believe Kate was actually telling the truth when she said
1. M 'Why didn't you come last night...?'
2. They have taken her (body)

Only the timeline might have got a bit wobbly afterwards in order to fit them around their abduction theory.

____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

Ribisl

Posts : 807
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Miraflores on 09.03.12 12:53

Miraflores didn't take the dogs' evidence into account - neither the impossible timeline of the 3rd. So that's why I said that.

I didn't mention it although I hadn't ignored it - I questioned the strange statement about the 'they' who had taken her. I think it's perfectly feasible that Madeleine could have died earlier that day, which would explain the cadaver odour. As to the timeline - we have precious little confirmation of what was happening after 5:30 pm - and the times before that are sketchy, so there could have been time to do a clean up.
avatar
Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by rainbow-fairy on 09.03.12 12:58

@Ribisl wrote:I agree with Aiyoyo. The idea of a sub is highly improbable imo for various reasons already mentioned. I too believe Madeleine must have died earlier on the 3rd, possibly while GM was still playing tennis. I agree with Stella that there wouldn't have been enough time for the body to remain in the apartment long enough for the cadaver odour to register then taken out to a hiding place, and for the team to clean the apartment and dispose of any incriminating evidence before alerting the police - if one assumes Kate found the body only when she raised alarm. It is feasible however if she died sometime after leaving the creche when she was alone with Kate and the twins.

I believe Kate was actually telling the truth when she said
1. M 'Why didn't you come last night...?'
2. They have taken her (body)

Only the timeline might have got a bit wobbly afterwards in order to fit them around their abduction theory.
I have to disagree on a couple of things here. Sub or no, I really don't believe that death while Gerry was playing tennis would allow any where near enough time to clear up before 'kick-off time' at ten. In between 'high tea', Gerry returning from tennis and both leaving for Tapas gives Kate, and ??? no more than three hours to clean up, get rid of incriminating cleaning materials etc etc. It was said the curtains had been washed - they'dve still been soaking wet, surely??? Bear in mind, allegedly no access to a car so it wouldve taken that much longer to get body safely away from OC and PdL (Which I am convinced it was, and long beforehand)

I don't believe Maddie asked the 'Why didn't you come...' question at any time. Its just not in a three year old's vocabulary for starters.

Does anyone know which day Kate purchased the cleaning materials at Batista Supermarket???

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
avatar
rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 43
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Miraflores on 09.03.12 13:03

It was said the curtains had been washed - they'dve still been soaking wet, surely???

I have seen the statement about the curtains being washed a number of times. Where does it come from - can anyone quote a reliable source?
avatar
Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by tigger on 09.03.12 13:20

@Miraflores wrote:
It was said the curtains had been washed - they'dve still been soaking wet, surely???

I have seen the statement about the curtains being washed a number of times. Where does it come from - can anyone quote a reliable source?

Very good point, there were washing machines in the apartments, perhaps with a drying cycle? In any case, wet curtains argue for an earlier death.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Guest on 09.03.12 13:41

@tigger wrote:
@Miraflores wrote:
It was said the curtains had been washed - they'dve still been soaking wet, surely???

I have seen the statement about the curtains being washed a number of times. Where does it come from - can anyone quote a reliable source?

Very good point, there were washing machines in the apartments, perhaps with a drying cycle? In any case, wet curtains argue for an earlier death.

Just had a quick look at news articles and found this on mccannfiles. Just past halfway down the page, an article from the Sunday Mirror, which of course has now been whooshed...............

THE inquiry turned dramatically against the McCanns when two British police sniffer dogs detected the scent of death in their holiday apartment

CURTAINS in the flat - said to have had blood on them - were washed after Madeleine's disappearance




http://www.mccannfiles.com/id29.html


Is there something in the PJ files about this?

avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Guest on 09.03.12 13:52

Curtains washed - sheets washed. Could the sheets have maybe been the curtains and knowing full well how noisy washing machines are spinning etc., and someone may have heard so we had soiled sheets? Obviously a washing machine running in 5a would have been heard by Mrs Fenn above? So could they have been taken to another apartment for washing? Just another question to throw into the mix. Need to find something conclusive that curtains were washed.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Guest on 09.03.12 14:10

@rainbow-fairy wrote:Does anyone know which day Kate purchased the cleaning materials at Batista Supermarket???

Do we have a statement about this from anyone? Can't say I remember it.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Guest on 09.03.12 14:17

Even if the curtains went into the washer/dryer to remove blood stains, there would be now even less time on the 3rd to complete everything. Someone had to remove all of the curtain hooks, wash + dry, then put all the curtain hooks back on, to hang it back up.

Keela alerted to blood at the bottom of the curtain, where it was in contact with the floor, so they must have been washed at some point. The question is when? I cannot believe it was on the 3rd after 5.30pm.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Guest on 09.03.12 14:20

Stella wrote:Even if the curtains went into the washer/dryer to remove blood stains, there would be now even less time on the 3rd to complete everything. Someone had to remove all of the curtain hooks, wash + dry, then put all the curtain hooks back on, to hang it back up.

Keela alerted to blood at the bottom of the curtain, where it was in contact with the floor, so they must have been washed at some point. The question is when? I cannot believe it was on the 3rd after 5.30pm.

It doesn't take too long to wash curtains and dry them. I have done it in 2 hours, the curtains were lined as well. They look to be of a cotton type of material so it wouldn't take long imo.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by russiandoll on 09.03.12 18:32

Only thing I recall reading about Baptista is in the book, on the day Kate is silent about everything other than a reference to the meal in the evening and a trip with JT to this supermarket to buy a few things........30th April.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy

avatar
russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Ribisl on 09.03.12 20:59

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

____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

Ribisl

Posts : 807
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Guest on 10.03.12 9:04

@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 ?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Ribisl on 10.03.12 10:14

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?

____________________
There is a taint of death, a flavour of mortality in lies... Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad

Ribisl

Posts : 807
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Guest on 10.03.12 10:23

@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?

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.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum