Substitute child?
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Madeleine Beth McCann :: Photographs of Madeleine McCann's fateful holiday
Page 8 of 9 • Share
Page 8 of 9 • 
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 
Re: Substitute child?
by Estelle 17.03.12 7:20
Tigger said: "I think Maddie is central to this whole affair - if Maddie had actually looked like her poster, behaved as her parents said she did, was the intelligent, lively toddler we've been told about, why change so many photographs? Why add a coloboma which they've now admitted she didn't have?
Why do completely opposite reports on Maddie leak through all the same? Difficult, a screamer, very difficult Maddie - hard to cope with.
There's a great difference losing a difficult, hard to control child with ongoing health problems to losing their 'sunshine child' a perfect child.
For all this to succeed, they needed a 'perfect' child and there's plenty of photographic and collateral evidence that Maddie didn't fit the bill.
There are many indications that this 'abduction' wasn't an accident - imo there is plenty of evidence that it was planned.
They would never have gotten away with it in the UK. The foreign angle was helpful to the case and used from day one by the McCanns.
Just see how many points in common there are with the JonBenet Ramsey case. There's a topic on it.
Because original thinkers - the McCanns - they ain't."[/quote]
Brilliant post, tigger!
Underhand Motives?
Modus operandi:
1. Take a "difficult, hard to control child with ongoing health problems" to a foreign country with a plan to "lose" her. Because if the truth about the real "Maddie" was known, then that might explain motive plus she would be less desirable for an abductor to take and also to attract money to the fund. Mix up the photos, change them so no one really knows what the real Maddie looks like.
2. Substitute her with another "Madeline" who did not like being called "Maddie" and who more likely resembles their 'sunshine child' - the perfect trophy child that narcissists could show off about - and take her and her friend to the creche for the whole five days of the week signing her and her friend in as if you are the parents of this child by forging the signature. It had to be for the whole five days so IMO Maddie met her fate at the beginning of the holiday.
Why do completely opposite reports on Maddie leak through all the same? Difficult, a screamer, very difficult Maddie - hard to cope with.
There's a great difference losing a difficult, hard to control child with ongoing health problems to losing their 'sunshine child' a perfect child.
For all this to succeed, they needed a 'perfect' child and there's plenty of photographic and collateral evidence that Maddie didn't fit the bill.
There are many indications that this 'abduction' wasn't an accident - imo there is plenty of evidence that it was planned.
They would never have gotten away with it in the UK. The foreign angle was helpful to the case and used from day one by the McCanns.
Just see how many points in common there are with the JonBenet Ramsey case. There's a topic on it.
Because original thinkers - the McCanns - they ain't."[/quote]
Brilliant post, tigger!
Underhand Motives?
Modus operandi:
1. Take a "difficult, hard to control child with ongoing health problems" to a foreign country with a plan to "lose" her. Because if the truth about the real "Maddie" was known, then that might explain motive plus she would be less desirable for an abductor to take and also to attract money to the fund. Mix up the photos, change them so no one really knows what the real Maddie looks like.
2. Substitute her with another "Madeline" who did not like being called "Maddie" and who more likely resembles their 'sunshine child' - the perfect trophy child that narcissists could show off about - and take her and her friend to the creche for the whole five days of the week signing her and her friend in as if you are the parents of this child by forging the signature. It had to be for the whole five days so IMO Maddie met her fate at the beginning of the holiday.
Estelle- Posts : 388
Activity : 471
Likes received : 83
Join date : 2009-12-22
Re: Substitute child?
by tigger 17.03.12 7:36
Estelle wrote:
1. Take a "difficult, hard to control child with ongoing health problems" to a foreign country with a plan to "lose" her. Because if the truth about the real "Maddie" was known, then that might explain motive plus she would be less desirable for an abductor to take and also to attract money to the fund. Mix up the photos, change them so no one really knows what the real Maddie looks like. unquote
You're not so bad yourself! the bolded bit puts it in a nutshell.
1. Take a "difficult, hard to control child with ongoing health problems" to a foreign country with a plan to "lose" her. Because if the truth about the real "Maddie" was known, then that might explain motive plus she would be less desirable for an abductor to take and also to attract money to the fund. Mix up the photos, change them so no one really knows what the real Maddie looks like. unquote
You're not so bad yourself! the bolded bit puts it in a nutshell.
____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
tigger- Posts : 8116
Activity : 8532
Likes received : 82
Join date : 2011-07-20 -
Re: Substitute child?
by Estelle 17.03.12 8:06
tigger wrote:Estelle wrote:
1. Take a "difficult, hard to control child with ongoing health problems" to a foreign country with a plan to "lose" her. Because if the truth about the real "Maddie" was known, then that might explain motive plus she would be less desirable for an abductor to take and also to attract money to the fund. Mix up the photos, change them so no one really knows what the real Maddie looks like. unquote
You're not so bad yourself! the bolded bit puts it in a nutshell.
Thanks, tigger!
I have been saying the above since 2007 but few ever wanted to believe me then.
I am feeling ominously confident now that the truth will come out soon. Many people used to tell me that it might take five years to catch the McCanns and I never believed them.
Estelle- Posts : 388
Activity : 471
Likes received : 83
Join date : 2009-12-22
we should not complain about digging deep and finding unpleasant things
by bobbin 17.03.12 9:17
Tigger and Estelle,
I couldn't agree more.
I am sorry if some posters think that it's unsavory to keep analysing Maddie and possibly, even in her own sweet innocence, highlighting some possible defects.
However, we are actually analysing an 'unknown quantity' here.
It will only be by constantly scratching away at ALL the soil that we will find the hidden clues, and we won't know where they are until and unless we scratch away at everything, whether it might seem insensitive or not, or whether it throws unpleasant things to the surface.
With reference to how the McCanns have treated the Portuguese.
I am often stunned by the sheer arrogance of some of my UK fellow travellers, who go abroad and then complain about the 'bl**dy foreigners' who seem to have difficulty understanding the English language, especially if it is delivered in a strong (even scouse or glaswegian) accent.
I have come across too many self-agrandising tourists who hold the belief that all 'foreigners' are thick, un-cultured, local idiots, because their ways are different and they cannot express themselves, in English and with fluency, yet of course, such travellers will not have bothered or even 'demeaned themselves' to have learnt the local language themselves.
The McCanns went away, apparently with their own three children and returned with just two.
They blame the Portuguese, their friendly and welcoming hosts, for the failure to find and return their child.
Their unguarded arrogance is so laughable it is almost breath-taking.
This is no ordinary situation. A real abduction would have involved all of the police searches, as happened, but with one difference, with the fullest co-operation of the parents.
This did not happen and that is where the suspicion starts and remains.
Maddie did not simply disappear.
Something else happened and what has followed by way of twisting, spinning, lying, accusing and blaming others, menacing witnesses, vindictively threatening any who do not accept their own 'alleged' abduction ('alleged' because it has not yet been tested and proven to be so in a courtroom) leaves us with no alternative but to suspect that some pre-conceived scam is being covered up.
The parents have shown themselves to be manipulative, in their use of the media, forceful in their use of legal suppression of speech, threatening in their use of political, high profile support, and all to conceal WHAT?
Now that is the question, and why we are still here five years later.
We have dug deep and still not found a satisfactory explanation, although there is no doubt that we are getting closer all the time.
We have to keep trying every different angle and that does not mean leaving some areas untouched, because they might seem a bit unkind to Maddie.
As I say, we do not even know who exactly little Maddie is, nor would we be doing here a true and honest service if we failed to look very deeply into everything, even if it is at the risk of appearing sometimes 'insensitive or mawkish' to do so.
However unlikely it might seem (almost the stuff of fiction and film) that another 'Maddie' might have been substituted, there are indications that this could be the case and with the accumulated information and the inconsistencies in the evidence so far, it would indicate more than not, that a plan was hatched some time before and that a callous or deliberately confusing 'substitution' was put in place.
I couldn't agree more.
I am sorry if some posters think that it's unsavory to keep analysing Maddie and possibly, even in her own sweet innocence, highlighting some possible defects.
However, we are actually analysing an 'unknown quantity' here.
It will only be by constantly scratching away at ALL the soil that we will find the hidden clues, and we won't know where they are until and unless we scratch away at everything, whether it might seem insensitive or not, or whether it throws unpleasant things to the surface.
With reference to how the McCanns have treated the Portuguese.
I am often stunned by the sheer arrogance of some of my UK fellow travellers, who go abroad and then complain about the 'bl**dy foreigners' who seem to have difficulty understanding the English language, especially if it is delivered in a strong (even scouse or glaswegian) accent.
I have come across too many self-agrandising tourists who hold the belief that all 'foreigners' are thick, un-cultured, local idiots, because their ways are different and they cannot express themselves, in English and with fluency, yet of course, such travellers will not have bothered or even 'demeaned themselves' to have learnt the local language themselves.
The McCanns went away, apparently with their own three children and returned with just two.
They blame the Portuguese, their friendly and welcoming hosts, for the failure to find and return their child.
Their unguarded arrogance is so laughable it is almost breath-taking.
This is no ordinary situation. A real abduction would have involved all of the police searches, as happened, but with one difference, with the fullest co-operation of the parents.
This did not happen and that is where the suspicion starts and remains.
Maddie did not simply disappear.
Something else happened and what has followed by way of twisting, spinning, lying, accusing and blaming others, menacing witnesses, vindictively threatening any who do not accept their own 'alleged' abduction ('alleged' because it has not yet been tested and proven to be so in a courtroom) leaves us with no alternative but to suspect that some pre-conceived scam is being covered up.
The parents have shown themselves to be manipulative, in their use of the media, forceful in their use of legal suppression of speech, threatening in their use of political, high profile support, and all to conceal WHAT?
Now that is the question, and why we are still here five years later.
We have dug deep and still not found a satisfactory explanation, although there is no doubt that we are getting closer all the time.
We have to keep trying every different angle and that does not mean leaving some areas untouched, because they might seem a bit unkind to Maddie.
As I say, we do not even know who exactly little Maddie is, nor would we be doing here a true and honest service if we failed to look very deeply into everything, even if it is at the risk of appearing sometimes 'insensitive or mawkish' to do so.
However unlikely it might seem (almost the stuff of fiction and film) that another 'Maddie' might have been substituted, there are indications that this could be the case and with the accumulated information and the inconsistencies in the evidence so far, it would indicate more than not, that a plan was hatched some time before and that a callous or deliberately confusing 'substitution' was put in place.
bobbin- Posts : 2053
Activity : 2240
Likes received : 145
Join date : 2011-12-05
so good, it should be read once, twice and thrice!
by rainbow-fairy 17.03.12 10:26
bobbin, I have re-quoted you in full as this is a fantastic post! I can't add emoticons with my blackberry, otherwise you wouldve just got yourself a 'BRAVO!'bobbin wrote:Tigger and Estelle,
I couldn't agree more.
I am sorry if some posters think that it's unsavoury to keep analysing Maddie and possibly, even in her own sweet innocence, highlighting some possible defects.
However, we are actually analysing an 'unknown quantity' here.
It will only be by constantly scratching away at ALL the soil that we will find the hidden clues, and we won't know where they are until and unless we scratch away at everything, whether it might seem insensitive or not, or whether it throws unpleasant things to the surface.
With reference to how the McCanns have treated the Portuguese.
I am often stunned by the sheer arrogance of some of my UK fellow travellers, who go abroad and then complain about the 'bl**dy foreigners' who seem to have difficulty understanding the English language, especially if it is delivered in a strong (even scouse or glaswegian) accent.
I have come across too many self-agrandising tourists who hold the belief that all 'foreigners' are thick, un-cultured, local idiots, because their ways are different and they cannot express themselves, in English and with fluency, yet of course, such travellers will not have bothered or even 'demeaned themselves' to have learnt the local language themselves.
The McCanns went away, apparently with their own three children and returned with just two.
They blame the Portuguese, their friendly and welcoming hosts, for the failure to find and return their child.
Their unguarded arrogance is so laughable it is almost breath-taking.
This is no ordinary situation. A real abduction would have involved all of the police searches, as happened, but with one difference, with the fullest co-operation of the parents.
This did not happen and that is where the suspicion starts and remains.
Maddie did not simply disappear.
Something else happened and what has followed by way of twisting, spinning, lying, accusing and blaming others, menacing witnesses, vindictively threatening any who do not accept their own 'alleged' abduction ('alleged' because it has not yet been tested and proven to be so in a courtroom) leaves us with no alternative but to suspect that some pre-conceived scam is being covered up.
The parents have shown themselves to be manipulative, in their use of the media, forceful in their use of legal suppression of speech, threatening in their use of political, high profile support, and all to conceal WHAT?
Now that is the question, and why we are still here five years later.
We have dug deep and still not found a satisfactory explanation, although there is no doubt that we are getting closer all the time.
We have to keep trying every different angle and that does not mean leaving some areas untouched, because they might seem a bit unkind to Maddie.
As I say, we do not even know who exactly little Maddie is, nor would we be doing here a true and honest service if we failed to look very deeply into everything, even if it is at the risk of appearing sometimes 'insensitive or mawkish' to do so.
However unlikely it might seem (almost the stuff of fiction and film) that another 'Maddie' might have been substituted, there are indications that this could be the case and with the accumulated information and the inconsistencies in the evidence so far, it would indicate more than not, that a plan was hatched some time before and that a callous or deliberately confusing 'substitution' was put in place.
We must remember, this is not a nursery rhyme, not a kids bedtime story. It is about the disappearAnce, and in all likelihood murder, of a three year old girl. A three year old girl who felt, who thought, who loved, who was potential - all gone. You are indeed correct that it is not helping Maddie not to go into 'unsavoury terrotory'. Indeed, the whole case could be seen as 'unsavoury'.
I think it is vitally important to look at everything if justice is ever to be done for this little girl.
Do people really think police solve crimes by shying away from things? 'Oh, we won't investigate that, its a bit near the knuckle'. Of course, I know (most of us) aren't police but the idea is the same.
Maddies physical appearance, possible disability, is very pertinent. Imo, her medical records were withheld for a reason. It is NOT normal for investigating officers to be denied the evidence they need to rule out the first suspects (family/friends/last person to see). We've got to ask ourselves why.
It is the honest truth that NOBODY on here has commented on 'Maddie' in a way that chilled me anywhere near as much as her own 'mother' did in the bewk. 'Exploring her perfect body with my eyes' - eurk!
Maddie deserves truth. Maddie deserves justice. If that takes us into areas we never thought we'd enter, or are a bit 'sensitive' then so be it.
A lost little girl deserves the truth. And we will not get that by skirting round issues.
____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
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.
rainbow-fairy- Posts : 1971
Activity : 2140
Likes received : 16
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 49
Location : going round in circles
Re: Substitute child?
by OpenMind 17.03.12 11:55
Could not have put any of this better myself. Since I saw the footage of the mccann's on MM's 4th birthday smiling outside the church I have known that one day we would know the truth about what happened to that poor little girl, and I also feel that that day may not be too far away now. I had until the last couple of weeks believed that I may never hear the truth, or possibly when I was a lot, lot older and am beginning to feel that all my hours of agonising over reports and photos could have been worth it. As I have become more vocal in my opinions to those around me I feel a few have listened but those in support of team Mccann have been totally shocked by my thoughts and some have even branded those of us that have not been fooled "heartless and uncaring". Like you, all I want is the truth so that MM's memory is not tarnished by the utter rot we are fed by the media and she can finally, at last, truly rest in peace. 
____________________
Keeping an open mind, always![You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
OpenMind- Posts : 66
Activity : 66
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-01-28
Location : UK
Re: Substitute child?
by Kololi 17.03.12 12:07
Like several of you, I too think the likelihood of Madeleine McCann being alive is unlikely.
What I don't understand is how anybody can make a statement about her resting in peace when we cannot be absoloutely with hand on heart sure that she is dead as we do not have the physical proof.
You don't want to shy away from "investigating" the "unsavoury" parts of this mystery? I would ask what qualifications do any of us hold that makes us investigators? Surely we are just ordinary folk spouting off our thoughts and hopes rather than investigators. Two Police forces who were there on the ground and who have probably had some training in investigation haven't made an arrest yet so why would we banging away on our computers at home be better placed to do so?
What I don't understand is how anybody can make a statement about her resting in peace when we cannot be absoloutely with hand on heart sure that she is dead as we do not have the physical proof.
You don't want to shy away from "investigating" the "unsavoury" parts of this mystery? I would ask what qualifications do any of us hold that makes us investigators? Surely we are just ordinary folk spouting off our thoughts and hopes rather than investigators. Two Police forces who were there on the ground and who have probably had some training in investigation haven't made an arrest yet so why would we banging away on our computers at home be better placed to do so?
Kololi- Posts : 677
Activity : 687
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-01-10
who was filming'Snow White'?
by worriedmum 17.03.12 12:18
just going back to the subject of the Snow White video, I rarely use a camcorder but can someone who does tell me if I am correct in thinking that Madeleine is being filmed by ONE person, at her own height and she looks back to the camera, and then looks(in the rather apprehensive, IMO, way ), at SOMEONE ELSE standing above and to the left of the person with the camera?
worriedmum- Posts : 2062
Activity : 2819
Likes received : 583
Join date : 2012-01-17
Re: Substitute child?
by Estelle 17.03.12 12:26
All excellent posts said with passion!
I have not read the book myself but feel as if I have. What about the part where Kate remarked that Maddie had "perfect little genitals"! Was that part of the book removed later? A mother remarking on her three year old daughter's genitals being perfect????
Last bit of post removed.
I have not read the book myself but feel as if I have. What about the part where Kate remarked that Maddie had "perfect little genitals"! Was that part of the book removed later? A mother remarking on her three year old daughter's genitals being perfect????
Last bit of post removed.
Estelle- Posts : 388
Activity : 471
Likes received : 83
Join date : 2009-12-22
Re: Substitute child?
by rainbow-fairy 17.03.12 12:28
WHO, Kololi, ever said we are 'better placed to do so?' WHO, Kololi, has stated an arrest will happen due to our discussions? No-one that I recall! And I'll tell you what, we are at LEAST as well-placed to 'investigate' as some of the jokers the McCann's hired. They didn't want anyone to autonomously 'investigate' as all leads back to the T9 and Apt 5A...Kololi wrote:Like several of you, I too think the likelihood of Madeleine McCann being alive is unlikely.
What I don't understand is how anybody can make a statement about her resting in peace when we cannot be absoloutely with hand on heart sure that she is dead as we do not have the physical proof.
You don't want to shy away from "investigating" the "unsavoury" parts of this mystery? I would ask what qualifications do any of us hold that makes us investigators? Surely we are just ordinary folk spouting off our thoughts and hopes rather than investigators. Two Police forces who were there on the ground and who have probably had some training in investigation haven't made an arrest yet so why would we banging away on our computers at home be better placed to do so?
What we are, Kololi, is a group of individuals. A group who are not fooled by the tosh spread by the lady you so admire and her husband.
I for one DO NOT believe the dogs were wrong. Hand on heart, I am CERTAIN poor little Maddie is dead. I would love to be mistaken, believe you me.
What gives us the right to question this? Had Team McCann not begged for money from the start to 'search' which instead they have used on lawyers, and rammed their ridiculous 'versions of the truth' in our faces, maybe no right. Had they co-operated with the Police FULLY, instead of dictating what THEY wanted to happen, why would we question?
People on here (not me as I never believed them) gave money in good faith to these people. They have EVERY right to ask which 'version of the truth' is the correct one.
Your post, taken as a whole, leads me inexorably to this question Kololi:
"Why are you here???"
____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
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.
rainbow-fairy- Posts : 1971
Activity : 2140
Likes received : 16
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 49
Location : going round in circles
Re: Substitute child?
by Guest 17.03.12 12:34
rainbow-fairy wrote:WHO, Kololi, ever said we are 'better placed to do so?' WHO, Kololi, has stated an arrest will happen due to our discussions? No-one that I recall! And I'll tell you what, we are at LEAST as well-placed to 'investigate' as some of the jokers the McCann's hired. They didn't want anyone to autonomously 'investigate' as all leads back to the T9 and Apt 5A...Kololi wrote:Like several of you, I too think the likelihood of Madeleine McCann being alive is unlikely.
What I don't understand is how anybody can make a statement about her resting in peace when we cannot be absoloutely with hand on heart sure that she is dead as we do not have the physical proof.
You don't want to shy away from "investigating" the "unsavoury" parts of this mystery? I would ask what qualifications do any of us hold that makes us investigators? Surely we are just ordinary folk spouting off our thoughts and hopes rather than investigators. Two Police forces who were there on the ground and who have probably had some training in investigation haven't made an arrest yet so why would we banging away on our computers at home be better placed to do so?
What we are, Kololi, is a group of individuals. A group who are not fooled by the tosh spread by the lady you so admire and her husband.
I for one DO NOT believe the dogs were wrong. Hand on heart, I am CERTAIN poor little Maddie is dead. I would love to be mistaken, believe you me.
What gives us the right to question this? Had Team McCann not begged for money from the start to 'search' which instead they have used on lawyers, and rammed their ridiculous 'versions of the truth' in our faces, maybe no right. Had they co-operated with the Police FULLY, instead of dictating what THEY wanted to happen, why would we question?
People on here (not me as I never believed them) gave money in good faith to these people. They have EVERY right to ask which 'version of the truth' is the correct one.
Your post, taken as a whole, leads me inexorably to this question Kololi:
"Why are you here???"
To state facts, obviously, without prejudice, apparently.
Guest- Guest
Re: Substitute child?
by Guest 17.03.12 12:38
Never before can I remember a case where we have had the actual police files, witness statements, forensics etc., on public display. It is natural therefore that people will discuss, debate, and "investigate" as Kololi puts it. If someone can point me to another case where the actual statements etc. have been released........?
This thread is now going off topic, it is about the for and against a substitute child
Comments referring to the Gaspar statements can be made on the relevant topic in this section as can comments on the videos etc. be made on the photographs and memories thread. Failing that please feel free to start another topic.
This thread is now going off topic, it is about the for and against a substitute child
Comments referring to the Gaspar statements can be made on the relevant topic in this section as can comments on the videos etc. be made on the photographs and memories thread. Failing that please feel free to start another topic.
Guest- Guest
Re: Substitute child?
by Estelle 17.03.12 12:49
Well I am convinced that there was a substitute child by the research on this forum and that Maddie must have met her fate before that child arrived at the creche. I think that once investigators look at the research that kikoraton on here or [email=kikoratton@twitter]kikoratton@twitter[/email] has passed on to SY and the PJ in Oporto, the police might just be at least able to establish that Maddie was not abducted and then be able to investigate the fund.
Estelle- Posts : 388
Activity : 471
Likes received : 83
Join date : 2009-12-22
Re: Substitute child?
by Kololi 17.03.12 16:15
OK on topic.
Please educate me here as to why anyone with a sane mind would hand over their child to a mate with the purpose being to deceive the world because another child has been killed or is about to be killed.
Has the child now gone back to her rightful parents and they carry on with their life without a backward glance? I cannot picture a child being substituted in the way suggested for the life of me - it's a bridge too far but hey, if the truth is ever discovered of this sad affair and it transpires with no doubt that a child was substituted for Madeleine McCann then I will be the first to say well done you to those that believe it.
Just two very brief responses Candyfloss if I may and then I will remain on topic should I post in this thread again. I do appreciate that a lot of information has been divulged to the public via the Police files but equally not all of it was. Madeleine's medical records I understand have not been shared as seems a point often raised here. Having said that, it would seem therefore, that any judgement or "investigation" made about her health or suspected special needs is not founded on fact but on scrutinising her photos in a most ghoulish way. Thank heavens the medical profession use something a little more substantial to diagnose childrens illnesses and conditions than a handful of photographs.
I am here Rainbow-fairy because when I joined this forum when it was first opened by Jill it was not only for those who did not believe the McCanns. It was a two way street where people of all beliefs were welcomed. I sat on the fence back then and have been rubbing my sore backside ever since actually and will continue to do so probably for the longterm. There is "anti" stuff that makes sense and equally there is "pro" stuff that does too and so I shall leave it to the experts to decide what happened to Madeleine that night as I don't feel qualified to make that judgement.
Please educate me here as to why anyone with a sane mind would hand over their child to a mate with the purpose being to deceive the world because another child has been killed or is about to be killed.
Has the child now gone back to her rightful parents and they carry on with their life without a backward glance? I cannot picture a child being substituted in the way suggested for the life of me - it's a bridge too far but hey, if the truth is ever discovered of this sad affair and it transpires with no doubt that a child was substituted for Madeleine McCann then I will be the first to say well done you to those that believe it.
Just two very brief responses Candyfloss if I may and then I will remain on topic should I post in this thread again. I do appreciate that a lot of information has been divulged to the public via the Police files but equally not all of it was. Madeleine's medical records I understand have not been shared as seems a point often raised here. Having said that, it would seem therefore, that any judgement or "investigation" made about her health or suspected special needs is not founded on fact but on scrutinising her photos in a most ghoulish way. Thank heavens the medical profession use something a little more substantial to diagnose childrens illnesses and conditions than a handful of photographs.
I am here Rainbow-fairy because when I joined this forum when it was first opened by Jill it was not only for those who did not believe the McCanns. It was a two way street where people of all beliefs were welcomed. I sat on the fence back then and have been rubbing my sore backside ever since actually and will continue to do so probably for the longterm. There is "anti" stuff that makes sense and equally there is "pro" stuff that does too and so I shall leave it to the experts to decide what happened to Madeleine that night as I don't feel qualified to make that judgement.
Kololi- Posts : 677
Activity : 687
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-01-10
Sleight of hand?
by Guest 17.03.12 16:40
I suppose I don't buy that the children were left home alone. So for me it's a given that the tapas alibi was worked on from the start. So this can only mean that the creche has been faked. Maybe I'm not thinking it through logically but I think that compared to convincing the world that shutters were jemmied, a child was abducted, there was no choice but to set up a limited company, GM has a large extended Irish family etc etc convincing a few nannies that Madeleine was at creche would be pretty simple in comparison.
What if you played a game with the children switching their names around for a bit of fun. On P30 Kate refers to the song "Madeleine, my only Madeleine". I don't buy that she sang it, just another of those things dropped in to evoke some much needed sympathy that she craves or is she referring to a song that Gerry might have sung to a fair haired little girl "Mad-dy, my only Mad-dy"? In the first few days the nannies would be getting used to the children yet many of their names were confused on the sheets, a charming male might sing a song to a little girl on the way to creche, engage the nanny in some distracting conversation or maybe imply that the child/children were experimenting with various names just in case there was a slip-up? It's the iconic picture of Madeleine that's so unlike her and most of the pictures at that point that makes me think it. In the same way as the Irish nation didn't refute the McCann's extended family visit claims makes me think that the nannies weren't going to deny Madeleine was there or that the pictures weren't really doing her justice etc. It's a sort of politeness and would seem irrelevant in the face of the enormous grief.
I believe that the exchange was done at the Millennium where 9 people swear the McCanns never went yet all of the employees state they were there. There has to be a very big reason to deny those free breakfasts.
What if you played a game with the children switching their names around for a bit of fun. On P30 Kate refers to the song "Madeleine, my only Madeleine". I don't buy that she sang it, just another of those things dropped in to evoke some much needed sympathy that she craves or is she referring to a song that Gerry might have sung to a fair haired little girl "Mad-dy, my only Mad-dy"? In the first few days the nannies would be getting used to the children yet many of their names were confused on the sheets, a charming male might sing a song to a little girl on the way to creche, engage the nanny in some distracting conversation or maybe imply that the child/children were experimenting with various names just in case there was a slip-up? It's the iconic picture of Madeleine that's so unlike her and most of the pictures at that point that makes me think it. In the same way as the Irish nation didn't refute the McCann's extended family visit claims makes me think that the nannies weren't going to deny Madeleine was there or that the pictures weren't really doing her justice etc. It's a sort of politeness and would seem irrelevant in the face of the enormous grief.
I believe that the exchange was done at the Millennium where 9 people swear the McCanns never went yet all of the employees state they were there. There has to be a very big reason to deny those free breakfasts.
Guest- Guest
Re: Substitute child?
by Estelle 17.03.12 17:21
Estelle I have deleted your post. This person has not been named here. If anyone wants this info please send a pm.
Estelle- Posts : 388
Activity : 471
Likes received : 83
Join date : 2009-12-22
how to send a p.m.
by bobbin 17.03.12 18:14
er, sorry, but how do we send a p.m. ? I'm fascinated now to know what I don't know.
bobbin- Posts : 2053
Activity : 2240
Likes received : 145
Join date : 2011-12-05
Re: Substitute child?
by Guest 17.03.12 18:16
bobbin wrote:er, sorry, but how do we send a p.m. ? I'm fascinated now to know what I don't know.
Click on members name. Takes you to their profile, then click on contacts, click pm, and send your message.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Or click middle icon under the person's avatar.
Guest- Guest
Re: Substitute child?
by Estelle 17.03.12 18:39
Estelle wrote:Estelle I have deleted your post. This person has not been named here. If anyone wants this info please send a pm.
Hi CandyFloss,
You could have just put xxxxxxxx in the spaces where you did not approve of the name. This is all on twitter. Just do a search on kikoratton on twitter.com going back a few weeks and months and you will find it. As it is public there, I thought it would be OK here or put the xxxxxxx in because the rest of the post is interesting.
Estelle
Estelle- Posts : 388
Activity : 471
Likes received : 83
Join date : 2009-12-22
easy does it
by Guest 17.03.12 20:00
The substitute.
How to get someone as far as to ok Gerry McCann to substitute Maddie by his daughter Madalene.
Simple. This father did not book into the package with creche facilities and so on.
Gerrie McCann offering their booked place in Madeleines name, could not change the reservation but the
little one rather stayed with grandma Healy. or some other innocuous excuse.
And why not have his M take the place of Madeleine, which was already booked and payed for. Go on, the father would be eager to accept the ruse and Gerry had what he needed, a substitute Madeleine that hé could sign in and out.
What do you think?
parapono
How to get someone as far as to ok Gerry McCann to substitute Maddie by his daughter Madalene.
Simple. This father did not book into the package with creche facilities and so on.
Gerrie McCann offering their booked place in Madeleines name, could not change the reservation but the
little one rather stayed with grandma Healy. or some other innocuous excuse.
And why not have his M take the place of Madeleine, which was already booked and payed for. Go on, the father would be eager to accept the ruse and Gerry had what he needed, a substitute Madeleine that hé could sign in and out.
What do you think?
parapono
Guest- Guest
Re: Substitute child?
by Guest 18.03.12 9:19
According to the nanny Catriona Baker, she said that she had all the childrens identity bracelets ready for when they arrived the first day. I have queried this before, as to how she knew before 9am on the 29th, what Madeleine's details and allergies were. She said the first time she met the McCann family was that morning the 29th. It appears the McCann's were missing from the welcome meeting then. But yes, someone must have booked Madeleine in the day before on the 28th and paid for the whole week. If you have paid for a place and someone doesn't show up, how do you explain that? This is why I think something must have happened on that first night.
Guest- Guest
Re: Substitute child?
by Guest 18.03.12 9:43
I always got the impression that the creche fees were settled at the end of the holiday because people didn't know when they'd use it or not. But it is very strange that the McCanns didn't book either the creche or the tennis lessons on 28th when they had every intention of using the creche and doing tennis.
Guest- Guest
Re: Substitute child?
by Estelle 18.03.12 9:47
Stella wrote:According to the nanny Catriona Baker, she said that she had all the childrens identity bracelets ready for when they arrived the first day. I have queried this before, as to how she knew before 9am on the 29th, what Madeleine's details and allergies were. She said the first time she met the McCann family was that morning the 29th. It appears the McCann's were missing from the welcome meeting then. But yes, someone must have booked Madeleine in the day before on the 28th and paid for the whole week. If you have paid for a place and someone doesn't show up, how do you explain that? This is why I think something must have happened on that first night.
Very good comment, Stella. My guess is that Gerry must have booked the substitute "Madeleine" in the day before as he could not take the risk that the substitute child would be associated with another father. Can we be sure that the McCanns were not at that welcome meeting? When did they book the twins in?
Estelle- Posts : 388
Activity : 471
Likes received : 83
Join date : 2009-12-22
Re: Substitute child?
by Guest 18.03.12 9:59
Estelle wrote:Stella wrote:According to the nanny Catriona Baker, she said that she had all the childrens identity bracelets ready for when they arrived the first day. I have queried this before, as to how she knew before 9am on the 29th, what Madeleine's details and allergies were. She said the first time she met the McCann family was that morning the 29th. It appears the McCann's were missing from the welcome meeting then. But yes, someone must have booked Madeleine in the day before on the 28th and paid for the whole week. If you have paid for a place and someone doesn't show up, how do you explain that? This is why I think something must have happened on that first night.
Very good comment, Stella. My guess is that Gerry must have booked the substitute "Madeleine" in the day before as he could not take the risk that the substitute child would be associated with another father. Can we be sure that the McCanns were not at that welcome meeting? When did they book the twins in?
Cat never mentions anything about being at the welcome meeting, which in itself is very interesting. But if you read all of the T9 statements, many of them said that the nannies were at the welcome meeting. She must have been there, it's an important registration event. She had Madeleine's details remember !!
As for the twins, if the McCann's were not at that welcome meeting, we can only assume at this stage that someone else must have booked the McCann children in for Kate and Gerry.
Guest- Guest
Re: Substitute child?
by Guest 18.03.12 10:03
Molly wrote:I always got the impression that the creche fees were settled at the end of the holiday because people didn't know when they'd use it or not.
If that was so, the Jellyfish creche sheets would not contain names of children who did not attend. But it does, there are many names left blank from not attending, so the fees must have been booked in advance. It would also ensure their placements did not get over subscribed.
But it is very strange that the McCanns didn't book either the creche or the tennis lessons on 28th when they had every intention of using the creche and doing tennis.
The nanny confirms they must have booked the creche on the 28th, as she had written out Madeleine's identity bracelet in advance, before they had even met on the 29th. Someone must have booked it for them.
Guest- Guest
Page 8 of 9 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Madeleine Beth McCann :: Photographs of Madeleine McCann's fateful holiday
Page 8 of 9
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
