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. smilie

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?

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?

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.

by rainbow-fairy 17.03.12 12:28

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?

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...
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???"

by Guest 17.03.12 12:34

rainbow-fairy wrote:
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?

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...
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.

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 ontopic

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 link.]

Or click middle icon under the person's avatar.

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

by Guest 18.03.12 20:43

Yes, it says on the MW site that reservations should be made in order to avoid disappointment. And they don't seem to have been made in advance because there's no note on the check in sheets. From the McCann's subsequent dependence on the creche I really wonder why this was the case. In the truthful book it says that they made the reservations on 28th. And some of the rogatories agree that the creche was booked on the Sat. Yet Catriona Baker didn't meet the McCanns until 29th. It could have happened that Catriona was busy when they checked in.

But it's the tennis that puzzles me. The McCanns aren't water people and their only interest is tennis. The courts are limited so they'd need to book as early as possible like Diane Webster did. They're athletic people, surely it'd be on their mind yet they made no booking until 29th and we know from their behaviour afterwards just how important their exercise was. That would surely be on top of my priority list, way ahead of sorting out the rooms or going for an icy swim. So why do both Paynes gloss over the welcome meeting in their rogatories and whats to hide that early into the trip.

by Kololi 18.03.12 22:27

Please oh please take this in the spirit that it is intended - with no offence meant for anyone wondering what that spirit is......

aaagh

typo

by pauline 18.03.12 22:59

Creche fees.

My understanding was that the holiday package price included a certain amount of time in the creche but not all day every day. The evening creche (which Kate did not use) was included in the holiday price.

by Kololi 18.03.12 23:07

pauline wrote:Creche fees.

My understanding was that the holiday package price included a certain amount of time in the creche but not all day every day. The evening creche (which Kate did not use) was included in the holiday price.

I am likely wrong Pauline but didn't they need to pay extra for the creche during the evening?

by Guest 18.03.12 23:56

I think I'm right in saying that there was only an extra charge if a nanny came and sat in the flat with children in the evenings. Kate said that the charge wasn't a problem but that she didn't want to leave the children with strangers - yes, the same people who looked after the children in the day!

One of Kate's many whoppers.

by Liz Eagles 19.03.12 0:13

Jean wrote:I think I'm right in saying that there was only an extra charge if a nanny came and sat in the flat with children in the evenings. Kate said that the charge wasn't a problem but that she didn't want to leave the children with strangers - yes, the same people who looked after the children in the day!

One of Kate's many whoppers.

She could have left the children with a babysitter and still gone to check every half hour if she were that worried. Jean you are right, having parked the kids off each day in various creche facilities and pursued other things (it was our holiday too) to then declare not wanting to leave the children with the same carers is bizarre.

Just another observation, if you were to employ a nanny/babysitter at home wouldn't you check them out? It seems that it's ok to trust a holiday resort nanny during the day with no background checks or personal vetting and then to say the same folk can't be trusted with your children at night. Then again, I doubt any of the T9 went to do random checks during the day to see if the nannies could be trusted with their children, far too busy playing tennis, swimming, sailing, 'into each other', routine bathing and bedtimes and then down to a restaurant to enjoy themselves again.

by Estelle 19.03.12 2:33

I have read enough about this week now including the mobile phone records to suspect that with the co-operation of the Ocean Club, Mark Warner, Woolfall (who had their own agenda of protecting their tourist licence and reputation so keen to cover up a murder), tennis and other activities were meant to be their alibis to cover for what other things they were really doing that week - hence Kate had to write her diary so that she could remember what these other things she was supposed to be doing were.

IMO the whole week was a fairy tale. Otherwise, where are the photos?

The importance of the creche was manifested as an idea to prove that Maddie was still alive using a substitute child. I do believe that the substiute child and her friend went to the creche for that very reason so those records are probably real with Gerry signing the substitute child and her friend in.

Were the twins really being looked after by the tapas7?

Did any of their children really go to the creche?

They have lied about everything else so why not also lie about the creche records?

IMO some of the tapas7 could have been the babysitters day and night that week with all the children staying in a villa elsewhere in the Ocean Club. I say that because IMO it seems unlikely that any children besides Maddie were ever in 5A (as it was so clean and tidy with no toys) which could have been planned as the place where she was to meet her fate being close to the street.

Was their suspected "pretendy" use of the creche by the McCanns for the twins suggested by the Ocean Club/Woolfall to start on the Sunday? Were many of the signatures forged in hindsight on these other records? What proof do we have from independent witnesses or photos that the twins were in the creche all the time or even stayed in 5A all week.

In other words, I am very sceptical about everything they have said that they did that week as it was all about alibis - not the truth.

by **tigger** 19.03.12 19:48

I've just posted in the Donegal topic re the two photographs that were so very ready for the Belfast Telegraph on the 8th of May.
You may have read that topic Estelle, just now it occurred to me that the body of the girl who imo has Maddie's face pasted on - is probably that of a 3 yr old girl - just a little larger than Sean who is sitting next to her.
But my thought was - isn't there an Irish connection with the possible sub? And could that in fact be the body of the sub?

by j.rob 26.02.15 18:50

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Miraflores wrote:
2)it doesn't explain a child answering to 'Maddie'...

Or not answering to Maddie - because we are repeatedly told by Kate that she only answered to 'Madlun'. This is despite all the posters having Maddie on them, the twins referring to Maddie etc..
Yep indeed. Sorry Miraflores, my mistake - I really should be less lackadaisical and in this instance I should've written 'Madeleine'.
This, actually is IMO probably the most convincing argument for a sub.
We already know that when Team McCann mention a small issue but make a big thing of it, its for a reason. WHY would Kate bother to mention her daughter 'indignantly' stating 'I'm not Maddie. My name is Madeleine' and the proceed to tell us (lie to us) that they themselves NEVER called her 'Maddie'. This is demonstrably false. The twins certainly called her that, Gerry's blog or facebook page called her Maddie. Kate wants us to believe that it was the 'newspapers invention'. Bull! Why would they? They didn't rename Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman ' Hols and Jessy' nor did they call Sarah Payne 'Saz' or 'Sar' - in the case of a missing, likely dead child as a mark of respect they would refer to the child as the parents did, I'm certain of that.
So why the big kerfuffle over 'Maddie'? It is obviously to cover the fact that 'Maddie' had a flip out stating 'My name is not Maddie its Madeleine' - conceivable that the sub WAS only referred to as Madeleine - did a creche worker call her 'Maddie' - or did one of the T9 adults slip up and do so, prompting the outburst?
Either way, the McCanns so blatantly lying over what they called their daughter indicates to me there is a very important reason for them making this so clear... Why???
I just come back to 1)they called their daughter 'Maddie' 2)they have said this to explain why their daughter publicly said 'My name is not Maddie'
Hope this makes some sense, I'm thinking out loud really...

Aha! So this would support the 'sub' theory, then? Yes, indeed. The Madalene in the creche remonstrated with staff/a parent that she was NOT Maddie but Madalene!

That would certainly account for why Kate makes a big thing in her book about her daughter not responding to the nickname Maddie, despite there being abundant evidence that the family and friends/nursery leaders (?) called her Maddie.

Bingo!

by j.rob 26.02.15 18:55

Guest wrote:Ribisi - I wonder whether you might find it useful to read the original creche thread which looks at the issue of substitution in the context of the creche records? That might help to provide you with some of the background rather than having to reiterate it here.

I do understand why people want to separate out issues but in my view a number of points are interlinked which means that discussing one issue in isolation does not help to understand the bigger picture. And inevitably discussion then goes into other areas.

I remembered overnight the correspondence that Tony B had with Philip Edmonds, a guest at the OC with his three sons . He says he has pictures taken of Madeleine with sons on 3 May. So that means that either Madeleine was still around on 3 May or the pictures are of a child whom everyone assumed was Madeleine.

Many of the nannies`s statements contain information about there being a child in the creche who answered to Maddie. I am not sure that we can say that they are all mistaken or being " economical" with the truth. It is not impossible of course that the creche sign in procedure was so haphazard that it allowed for children to be signed in and out without nannies knowing what was going on. So mistaken identity is an alternative to substitution.

Yes. If a lot of the children looked similar, it is quite likely that nannies would get their names muddled up and not know exactly what they looked like. I used to be mistaken for a girl in my class at school for nearly a whole year by one of my teachers. And I don't even think we looked that similar! So TM may just have been hoping that staff and parents would not be sure what Madeleine looked like and would assume she was one of the other 'blonde, pink and pretty girls' as Bridget O'Donnell put it.