Substitute child?

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.

That is where we are today, an on working hypothesis in a nutshell.

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I've just got to add that the use of the out of date picture supports the substitute Madeleine theory completely.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 they used some outdated photos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: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.

I'm with Mike H on this. Why would they have had with them, ready printed, a cute photo-shopped image of her looking much younger than she would have been when she went missing? Why no photos from Kate's camera from the holiday? Imo all the above points do support the substitute hypothesis.

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'?

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.

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?

That is precisely what we have to consider. I also think Philip Edmonds truly believed it was Madeleine in his photos. After all he has no reason to lie about this and is just another innocent individual caught up in all this. It's just a shame he didn't say which Police force he sent his photos on to.

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?

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?

tigger, here's what I've always thought;
People have asked "Wouldn't the other parents from the creche notice a missing / different child?"
Personally, I don't think they would notice one way or another. Its a holiday resort and they would be in holiday mode, hardly the same as a nursery at home where you get to know your child's classmates. Unless something really stood out about the child in question, I'm certain the other parents would take no notice whatsoever. Drop the children and off to tennis etc.
By all accounts, ten little blonde girls. Who would be studying them that carefully, really? One child looks much like another if they are not your own...

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.

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?

But what parent in their right mind would then go out the following night after their child had told them they were crying? I just don't believe this happened.

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?

If I'm not mistaken the ratio was about one nanny to six or seven children, not very high to my mind.
I'm interested as to why you believe the McCanns are 'telling the truth' about the crying conversation, indeed the re-telling of this has changed over time like many of their tales. I, for one, absolutely do NOT believe it happened, just not a believable thing for a child to say in that way an then "just move on" according to Kate.
No, to my mind a pure fabrication to try and strengthen the 'abductor did a dry run the night before' - a ridiculous scenario in itself.
Obviously your belief or otherwise is not based simply on evidence or lack thereof, as there is no evidence at all that the conversation you mention happened at all?
Just my view: IF Maddie was alive and IF she asked that, then the McCanns truly are wicked, heartless people who shouldn't be in charge of a goldfish, never mind children!

Re the 1st or 2nd for the crying episode.

Will one believe:

an old lady whose memory seems perfectly good, who has backed up her statement with a confirmation of a friend she telephoned at that time. Who can prove she wasn't in on the evening of the 2nd -

or two people who have changed the crying story several times, (there are at least three versions) who have been proven to lie on other subjects and who stand to gain from having their story believed?

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.

Mrs. Fenn reported the crying to the PJ. The McCanns had no option but to incorporate it or call Mrs. Fenn a liar. Other people might turn up who'd have heard her cry - so imo they'd rather not have used it. This is a pattern with the changing stories as e.g. with the Smiths sighting which was ignored until it became useful for the narrative.

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.

There were 3 permutations of the crying incident from the McCanns, in their statements.
Maddie, the twins, Maddie and one of the twins [please correct if I have made a mistake here]
Maddie only made one statement about crying which was left hanging in the air according to her parents and not followed through, so which one of the 3 was it?


re the sub theory........is the theory that a sub was used from the get go [ would have to be surely?] and not after any accident where one would have to be requested from a very helpful friend or stranger[ not plausible]. If a fake Maddie was in creche 29th April, she must have had a coloboma imo which would have been noticeable to the nanny ? [thinking of the iconic coloboma photo released soon after disappearance].
Also, premeditated to a massive degree.
Therefore, no Maddie taken to Portugal? Why would they take her if they were using a sub from the start..no point, esp if they were committing such a wicked crime. That would explain no DNA but means blood and cadaver odour planted by the couple?? Why would they bring death into the equation? It is all so convoluted .
The creche sheets are dodgy.......but I find this level of premeditation and subterfuge too risky and the whole thing is much more sinister and evil than I first believed. I need a break from the sub theory, my brain hurts.

I do remember an early statement from a nanny that she'd never noticed the coloboma. Long time ago.

tigger wrote:I do remember an early statement from a nanny that she'd never noticed the coloboma. Long time ago.

Another thing to remember, the nannies were shipped out to different resorts within days. The McCanns, by this time, had created a media storm. Which nanny in their right mind would publicly contradict a 'devastated couple' when the eyes of the world were on them? Would it have made a difference?
Imo this could be why the McCanns have now done a 180, and the coloboma of the glory days has changed to 'barely a fleck'. Perhaps they know the wheels are coming off, and are subtly altering their narrative? Won't work, as we have the posters, the photo's, the 'LOOK' campaign...
They've been given plenty of rope, and they've even tied the knot. Someone just needs to be brave enough to push them into the noose of their own making...

tigger wrote:I do remember an early statement from a nanny that she'd never noticed the coloboma. Long time ago.

Last Updated: Thursday, 21 February 2008, 15:38 GMT


How common is Madeleine's eye defect?


WHO, WHAT, WHY?
The Magazine answers...

Called a coloboma, the defect can appear as a keyhole shape

A girl resembling Madeleine McCann has been spotted in France by a woman who says she had the same eye blemish as the missing girl's. Police have dismissed the sighting, but how common is the defect?
Referred to as the "mark of Madeleine" the blemish on the four-year-old's right eye has played a key part in the campaign to highlight her disappearance, emphasised in posters and videos.

It was at the centre of the latest possible sighting of her. Dutch student Melissa Fiering says she saw a girl who looked like Madeleine McCann at a service station in the South of France.

She believed it was the youngster, who went missing from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz last May, because she had a dark smudge on her right iris. However, police examining CCTV evidence have determined it was not the missing girl.


THE ANSWER


Colobomas are extremely rare - about 0.007% of the population


It's not the first reported sighting of Madeleine, but a spokesman for the McCann family said it was "more worthy than most" because of the eye defect.

The blemish is called a coloboma of the iris. Its precise incidence is not recorded in the UK, but figures suggest it occurs in about 0.007% of the population. A 1989 study in China found two cases in a survey of 26,512 children under 12 years of age. That would mean a prevalence of 7.5 per 100,000.

In the UK, cases of coloboma are lumped in with two other congenital eye defects - microphthalmia and anophthalmia - says the Micro and Anophthalmic Children's Society (Macs).

"There are about three to seven babies every 100,000 live births, born with any one of these defects," says a spokeswoman for the society, although "coloboma is more common than the other two conditions."

A coloboma occurs when the eye fails to develop fully while the baby is in the womb. It leaves part of the structure missing, creating a gap.

Keyhole

Colobomas can occur in several parts of the eye - the word itself means an absence or defect of tissue. When a coloboma is in the iris - like Madeleine's - it can give the appearance of a keyhole. In very rare cases a person can get one in each eye.

"They're pretty uncommon," says Iain Anderson, chairman of the Eyecare Trust. "In my patient base of 5,000 just one person has one. It is a significant distinguishing feature in identifying someone."

It's not known why colobomas occur but there appears to be a strong hereditary factor.


WHO, WHAT, WHY?

A regular part of the BBC News Magazine, Who, What, Why? aims to answer some of the questions behind the headlines

Having a coloboma can cause sight problems but it depends on which part of the eye is affected and to what extent, according to Dr Trisha Macnair.
"If the iris is affected, the pupil may be oval or keyhole-shaped rather than round, and central vision may be affected," she says.

While French police have ruled out the latest "sighting" of Madeleine, given the rareness of the eye defect it's perhaps not surprising Ms Fiering believed she had seen the missing girl.

"I looked in her eye because I'd seen on TV that Madeleine's got a defect in her right iris and I saw this girl had it," she told the Daily Mirror. "I could hardly believe my eyes, but I knew for sure it was her."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Having read all your postings I am still not convinced there was a substitute.
Anyone, especially a growing child, could look very different in snapshots.
Madeleine may have been small for her age but that alone is no proof for any underlining illness.
Withholding of the medical records does not necessarily imply any hidden illness or anything sinister.
There are too many witnesses - the nannies at the creche who would have noticed the difference between the Madeleine they had looked after for several days and the photos published after the event if they were of two different children.
Who would allow his/her child to be used in this way?
What would have been the point of it all?

Who would allow his/her child to be used in this way?

That's the problem I have with the substitute theory.
Also at hand over time, would a substitute happily go with Gerry or Kate? For that to work, the child would already have to know them well.

I have seen two young children meeting for the first time and within 5 minutes they were holding hands and off exploring all around the house, hopping and skipping. The young children of today through preschool, are well socialised and would easily go where other children are.

When was the first picture of Madeleine released locally and was it a good representation of Madeleine? All the pictures I have seen of her all vary. Why would the main nannies be given a picture of her immediately afterwards anyway? They had seen her all week, so didn't need to see one did they. If the anny was shipped off to Greece within a week, would the Greek newspapers show her picture? I doubt it somehow.

When was the first picture printed in the local newspaper in PdL? Was it before or after the nannies were relocated?

You all saw Gerry's reaction when asked if he knew Murat. What makes you think he didn't know anyone else staying out there that week? Maybe the same group of families that all went to Greece before, all went to Portugal.

Don't forget, there is a picture of a little girl outside an unidentified apartment. Who owns that apartment, who is the little girl and why was it on a T9 camera?

Don't forget, there is a picture of a little girl outside an unidentified apartment. Who owns that apartment, who is the little girl and why was it on a T9 camera?

Stella, this may be irrelevant but looking at the picture in question earlier I noticed the child's toes were pointing outward whereas in the pictures of Madeleine I have seen she tends to stand or walk with her toes pointing inward.

Ribisl wrote:

Don't forget, there is a picture of a little girl outside an unidentified apartment. Who owns that apartment, who is the little girl and why was it on a T9 camera?

Stella, this may be irrelevant but looking at the picture in question earlier I noticed the child's toes were pointing outward whereas in the pictures of Madeleine I have seen she tends to stand or walk with her toes pointing inward.

Regardless of who the child is at this stage. The child was entering or exiting an apartment not allocated to the T9. Which might add some weight to the sub theory, especially if this is her and the apartment where she was staying.

Stella wrote:

Ribisl wrote:

Don't forget, there is a picture of a little girl outside an unidentified apartment. Who owns that apartment, who is the little girl and why was it on a T9 camera?

Stella, this may be irrelevant but looking at the picture in question earlier I noticed the child's toes were pointing outward whereas in the pictures of Madeleine I have seen she tends to stand or walk with her toes pointing inward.

Regardless of who the child is at this stage. The child was entering or exiting an apartment not allocated to the T9. Which might add some weight to the sub theory, especially if this is her and the apartment where she was staying.

Or simply being seen in the corridor outside that apartment?

Ribisl wrote:

Stella wrote:

Ribisl wrote:

Don't forget, there is a picture of a little girl outside an unidentified apartment. Who owns that apartment, who is the little girl and why was it on a T9 camera?

Stella, this may be irrelevant but looking at the picture in question earlier I noticed the child's toes were pointing outward whereas in the pictures of Madeleine I have seen she tends to stand or walk with her toes pointing inward.

Regardless of who the child is at this stage. The child was entering or exiting an apartment not allocated to the T9. Which might add some weight to the sub theory, especially if this is her and the apartment where she was staying.

Or simply being seen in the corridor outside that apartment?

Are you saying that on route from A to B, someone thought 'oh let's stop here and take a couple of photos'? In a grotty corridor outside someone elses apartment? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]