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

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Guest on 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.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Kololi on 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
avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by pauline on 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.
avatar
pauline

Posts : 548
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Kololi on 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?
avatar
Kololi

Posts : 677
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Guest on 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.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by aquila on 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.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8698
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by Estelle on 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.
avatar
Estelle

Posts : 388
Reputation : 83
Join date : 2009-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by tigger on 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?

____________________
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 j.rob on 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!

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Substitute child?

Post by j.rob on 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.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 233
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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