Substitute child?

tigger wrote:I just as confused as RD and RF..

What makes you so totally convinced that it is Madeleine in that photograph? Have you actually seen these photographs? And didn't you argue against them some months ago, saying that they would have been taken at far to great a distance to determine whether it was Maddie or not?


Does it then look if the creche record topic is redundant and we're all going to go back to an accident on the 3rd?
I for one, won't.

tigger wrote:I just as confused as RD and RF.. Now there's a surprise.

What makes you so totally convinced that it is Madeleine in that photograph? Have you actually seen these photographs? And didn't you argue against them some months ago, saying that they would have been taken at far to great a distance to determine whether it was Maddie or not?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Are you saying Philip Edmonds is lying? Why would he do that?

Whether or not you could see her in the photograph or not, is irrelevant. A high profile witness said she was. Well the child he thought to be Madeleine McCann was. Which kind of proves a point really.

Does it then look if the creche record topic is redundant and we're all going to go back to an accident on the 3rd?



You can if it you want to. I'm sticking with an earlier date.

tigger wrote:

tigger wrote:I just as confused as RD and RF..

What makes you so totally convinced that it is Madeleine in that photograph? Have you actually seen these photographs? And didn't you argue against them some months ago, saying that they would have been taken at far to great a distance to determine whether it was Maddie or not?


Does it then look if the creche record topic is redundant and we're all going to go back to an accident on the 3rd?
I for one, won't.

You missed my last four words Stella.

tigger wrote:

Stella on Mon Sep 05, 2011 10:11 am

Tony Bennett wrote:

Dear Mr Bennett,
I am in receipt of your letter of 22 July regarding Madeleine McCann. I am sure you would appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment too much, as we do not know each other, and I have no idea what your connection to the case is. However, I would also not want further conspiracy theories to fester by simply ignoring your letter.
Therefore, I can confirm that whatever information I had (including some photos of my sons taken on the day Madeleine disappeared, which showed her in the background) was passed both to the police and to the McCanns at the time. Having been in Portugal at the time of Madeleine’s disappearance and seen all of the events first hand, there is not one shred of doubt in my mind that the events as reported were correct.
In fact one of the most terrible parts of this tragedy is that there are people out there who are questioning this, just adding further to the nightmare that the McCann family have suffered. I cannot imagine anything crueller.
I’m afraid I won’t enter into further correspondence on this matter with you.
Yours sincerely,
Philip Edmonds

This is rather odd statement to make. Mr Edmonds boys were 6, 7 & 8 years of age at that time. They were not in the same creche group as Madeleine. Madeleine was never taken to the evening Tapas restaurant. At lunch time, the McCanns' claim to have eaten back at their apartment. So how did these children come to be in the same picture as Madeleine?

candyfloss wrote:Stella, I have to admit that I am confused to. You have subscribed to the theory for months that there was a substitute, and that something happened to MM earlier. Then you come on and post that Goncalo theory is correct that she was around until 5.30 on May 3rd. Posters were only questioning what you meant, and as I have said I to am confused.

alison wrote: I think what Stella is trying to do is show that if you believe that Madeleine had died before the evening of 3 May, then how can there be an explanation for sightings of Madeleine on 3rd May unless there was a substitute or case of mistaken identity that had lasted all week.

Remember the nanny Cat Edwards states categorically that she saw Madeleine on 3 May both in her initial statement and her later rogatory statement.

zodiac wrote:

Juulcy wrote:Hi zodiac, I can't find it now, but we already discussed the topic of brown eyes. Apparently it is a typo, and Kate writes : big big eyes, and not big brown eyes. I don't have her book, but someone can surely verify it.

Juulcy,

Thanks. I forgot I had a copy of the book and have just checked. It does say:

Big, big eyes

Juliette wrote:

alison wrote: I think what Stella is trying to do is show that if you believe that Madeleine had died before the evening of 3 May, then how can there be an explanation for sightings of Madeleine on 3rd May unless there was a substitute or case of mistaken identity that had lasted all week.

Remember the nanny Cat Edwards states categorically that she saw Madeleine on 3 May both in her initial statement and her later rogatory statement.

Yes alison that's my take on what Stella said too. Not in the least confusing.

Stella wrote:

Ribisl wrote:I have browsed through the creche records and they are truly fascinating, especially when you compare them with the MCs' telephone trail. Well done Stella [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

However I do not believe they constitute an entirely reliable source of information. As HiDeHo and others have pointed out, it appears overall control was pretty slack and set procedures, if they ever existed, were not vigorously followed by the staff. So it's quite possible that the children were coming and going without the staff actually checking and confirming who, when or how they were signed in or out. And under such circumstances I can easily imagine Madeleine and Madalene getting mixed up by some of the staff.

I am still trying to find out some evidence that gives ground to the supposition that something could have happened to Madeleine prior to 1st May when Mrs Fern heard her crying at night. To me the most plausible timeline so far is with Madeleine's death occurring some time between the 2nd and 3rd which would have given the MCs enough time to set the scene for her disappearance. This would also be consistent with the cadaver dogs' findings.

You assume that death was around the 2nd - 3rd;

Then who was the little girl in Philip Edmonds photo taken on the 3rd, who he claims was Madeleine? This is the nephew of Lady Margaret Hodge MP. A relative of the Oppenheimer family. Someone who would be very respected in court.

Who was the little girl that was signed out of creche at 5.30 on the 3rd, who also attended high tea with all the other children and their parents.

Goncalo Amaral was quite confident that Madeleine was still alive by then.

Yet we still have people talking of death before that time, but never explain how that is even possible.

Ribisl wrote:I go back to what I said at the beginning of this thread that we need to focus on two points:
1. Can we prove that Madeleine was dead prior to her 'disappearance' on 3rd May?
2. Are there reliable witnesses to confirm 'Madeleine' was around on 3rd May?

If the answer to both is yes, then one could draw a conclusion that there might indeed have been a substitute.

MikeH wrote:
...
Supporting the substitute theory....

I've just got to add that the use of the out of date picture supports the substitute Madeleine theory completely. They could not use a current photo of Madeleine because all of the nannies would notice that it was not the same child, hence the assortment of photos we see, all appearing to be almost different children. The nannies would have stated that the Madeleine they had looked after was a different child, similar perhaps, but not the same. Using a plethora of photographs of differently aged photos of Madeleine just clouded the issue.

The "photoshopped" iconic image of Madeleine which everyone now knows, was clearly prepared and printed in advance as this was the image that they had to get out there at the earliest opportunity, cute and marketable Madeleine, and following the admittance on the Piers Morgan show that this coloboma was nothing but a slight fleck, this image must have been enhanced, which all points to pre planning of the entire "abduction" scenario.

And... just where are all the loving family photographs, which normal families take frequently of their children, from this holiday which would show Madeleine as she really appeared at this time - in reality there are none, other than the one which mysteriously appeared several weeks later after a return visit to the UK.

Simply, if your child went missing, a child aged almost 4 years old, would you immediately have photos printed of how your child appeared almost two years ago so that people would know who to look for............ ?

Mike

Ribisl wrote:MikeH posted this under a different thread but I have taken the liberty of replying here. Hope you don't mind.

MikeH wrote:
...
Supporting the substitute theory....

I've just got to add that the use of the out of date picture supports the substitute Madeleine theory completely. They could not use a current photo of Madeleine because all of the nannies would notice that it was not the same child, hence the assortment of photos we see, all appearing to be almost different children. The nannies would have stated that the Madeleine they had looked after was a different child, similar perhaps, but not the same. Using a plethora of photographs of differently aged photos of Madeleine just clouded the issue.

The "photoshopped" iconic image of Madeleine which everyone now knows, was clearly prepared and printed in advance as this was the image that they had to get out there at the earliest opportunity, cute and marketable Madeleine, and following the admittance on the Piers Morgan show that this coloboma was nothing but a slight fleck, this image must have been enhanced, which all points to pre planning of the entire "abduction" scenario.

And... just where are all the loving family photographs, which normal families take frequently of their children, from this holiday which would show Madeleine as she really appeared at this time - in reality there are none, other than the one which mysteriously appeared several weeks later after a return visit to the UK.

Simply, if your child went missing, a child aged almost 4 years old, would you immediately have photos printed of how your child appeared almost two years ago so that people would know who to look for............ ?

Mike

Sorry but I don't agree that any of these points imply there was a substitute for Madeleine.
I agree
1. they used some outdated photos
2. some photos appear to have been Photoshopped
3. very few family photos have been published.
plus
4. timing of the release of some photos appears odd
5. the dates the MCs attribute to certain photos appear false
But we don't know the true reason behind any of them and even taking 2,4 & 5 as facts they do not support the substitute hypothesis imo.

Ribisl wrote:If there was a substitute, would it not have been more logical to publish some of the sub's photos on this holiday so the people who came into direct contact with her ie creche staff, cleaning lady, restaurant waiters, etc. would have no problem recognising 'Madeleine'?

Juliette wrote:Re the photos that Phil Edmonds claims to have of 'Madeleine' with his boys. Perhaps it was the sub who was on these pics?

Juliette wrote:

Ribisl wrote:If there was a substitute, would it not have been more logical to publish some of the sub's photos on this holiday so the people who came into direct contact with her ie creche staff, cleaning lady, restaurant waiters, etc. would have no problem recognising 'Madeleine'?

I think it would have been risky for them to publish the subs photos as she would be recognized by people other than the MW Staff - friends and family of the sub who would have recognized her. MW were very quick to ship the Nannies off to other resorts soon after.

Re the photos that Phil Edmonds claims to have of 'Madeleine' with his boys. Perhaps it was the sub who was on these pics?

ETA - Just walking to the local shop yesterday I noticed 2 girls that could easily have passed for being Madeleine age 3. At that age children's features are not well defined and look similar if you don't know the children.

tigger wrote:

Juliette wrote:

Ribisl wrote:If there was a substitute, would it not have been more logical to publish some of the sub's photos on this holiday so the people who came into direct contact with her ie creche staff, cleaning lady, restaurant waiters, etc. would have no problem recognising 'Madeleine'?

I think it would have been risky for them to publish the subs photos as she would be recognized by people other than the MW Staff - friends and family of the sub who would have recognized her. MW were very quick to ship the Nannies off to other resorts soon after.

Re the photos that Phil Edmonds claims to have of 'Madeleine' with his boys. Perhaps it was the sub who was on these pics?

ETA - Just walking to the local shop yesterday I noticed 2 girls that could easily have passed for being Madeleine age 3. At that age children's features are not well defined and look similar if you don't know the children.

At last! The voice of reason - there were 10 blond three years olds at OC - if none of them were yours, how would you tell them apart?

Ribisl wrote:I am still inclined to believe Madeleine was alive till she left the creche in the afternoon of the 3rd because I think MCs are actually telling the truth when they recount Madeleine mentioning her crying the night before. And I have not seen or heard any evidence directly pointing to her earlier death. Then there would be no need for a substitute. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

If the girl at the creche was a substitute, some of the staff would likely have raised doubts on seeing Madeleine's photos. I take your point about all three year old blonds looking alike but we are talking about a small creche where each staff was in charge of a handful of children each day and most of them were attending morning and afternoon for several days running. It is very different imho from a passer-by observing a group of children he or she has never met.

Mark Warner's publicity says this:
Mini Club (3 - 5 year olds)
Our mini club provides a fun-filled activity programme throughout the week and there is always a high ratio of nannies to children.
Do we know what the actual ratio was in 2007?

Ribisl wrote:rainbow-fairy, I don't BELIEVE but thought this statement was more plausible than many other coming from the MCs. Why should they make something up that would reflect badly on them? But if there is any evidence to suggest this was also a fabrication in order to make us believe in the dry-run theory then I am open to be persuaded.