Substitute child?

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.]

Hi all, I've checked through the whole thread and can't find the photo of the child outside the unknown apartment.

Could someone please post it up, or a reference to it. Thanks.

bobbin wrote:Hi all, I've checked through the whole thread and can't find the photo of the child outside the unknown apartment.

Could someone please post it up, or a reference to it. Thanks.

Hi Bobbin,

this is the photo. It's discussed in the Slumber Club topic on Stella's section

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

Thank you Stewie, and yes, Ribisl, the feet do look to be turning out, not the stance we have seen on any photos that we have come to believe are of Madeleine.

Also the stance looks to be 'leaning back' a little, more to my mind, like the Payne daughter's stance, but it is nigh on impossible to see with the black as it is.

Am looking forward to discovering what Goncalo Amaral seems to have been holding back on. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Since this thread is the debate about "for" or "against" sub, I am arguing against.
Personally if anyone were to ask my opinion, I dont believe a sub was used.

That would involve too many outside factors - messy, complicating, and risky - not something control freak like the mccanns would subject themselves to - that's first point. We are talking about a manipulative pair here, but manipulative clever and not manipulative stupid.
Another point being it is neither feasible nor plausible. When you have a 'dead' body of a loved one on your hand your priority would be to get it out of your roof within 24 hours, whether that is undertaken by funeral director or by yourself (in the case of homicide). That would be the normal psychology of normal people. Despite mccanns' manifest flaws and arrogance they are still 'normal...ish' people and not psychopath killer and they did love Madeleine I believe, though I suspect not unconditionally and not for Madeleine as she was.

Unlike stranger homicide where disposal is done in haste anyhow without regard or respect for the victim 'cos no-emotion was involved; one would imagine where domestic homicide is concerned, especially in this particular case of a small innocence, hapless, and harmless child, at the very least a decent burial would be considered by her parents.

If Maddie had died as early as people purported then the mccanns' turmoil mind would be pre-occupied with getting rid of body and forensics and not charade with a substitute. Domestic homicide, unlike known criminal or stranger homicide, there is usually no criminal database or outside witness to tie them to the crime, the need to dispose of the 'body' though inevitable as well, would not have the same pressing level as a stranger homicide. Nonetheless IMV it will done within 24 hours. Generally when faced with death of a loved one at home people will try to arrange for funeral parlour service and get everything done within half a day and anyway not beyond 24 hours, and I believe this works the same way even of death as a result of domestic homicide. I
f Maddie had died as early as people purported then where would Mccanns have left her body and who would agree to sub for them?

Anyhow I find it hard to believe anyone would leave a corpse in situ beyond 24 hours for a simple logic the last thing perpetrators would want is to have the 'body' spend another night with them, or rather the other way round - the mccanns wouldnt want to spend another nigh with the 'body' under their roof. Apart from being unable to go to sleep with a body in the next room, there are other psychological factors - the initial panic would turn to real fear of being discovered and all sorts will play on their mind.

Although I believe Maddie met her fate hours earlier than timeline created by mccanns as their alibi for neglect, but not as early as start of holiday. At worst the creche register is a piece of sloppy documentation which no nanny or parent pays any particular attention to, so long as the children are signed in and out. Maddie was likely not in the creche on 3/5, but as to how to explain the discrepancy from the nannie's witnesses statement I haven't worked that out yet.

Aiyoyo,
I agree that a sub will only work if it was done as from the first day. Which opens a can of worms. But I'm still open to that possibility because I do believe there was something noticeable wrong with Maddie. Nothing disfiguring, but something which would be unusual and obvious enough to not confuse her with another child.

But I totally agree that there must be as few players as possible.
I'm however, convinced of planning - possibly as far ahead as six months or so.
And I'm also convinced it was about money and status. All we need to do is see where the money went.

Murat is key imo. As from the date he booked his flight. But I don't think he got his hands dirty, just had keys and contacts.
For me it's TM, Murat, GB. Those are the key players. O yes, BK - as they say in US cop films, I like him. A lot.
All the rest are extras - unfortunately with speaking parts.

As for the sub, a small child will easily go along with lots of people, especially when she's told by her parents. The sub's father may be on the square, owe G something or had an ulterior money motive. People keep forgetting that the financial soufflé was about to sink in 2007.

So you'd have a core, an inner circle of no more than 4 or 5 and a circle of 'witnesses' friends, family all facilitators. And further circles of bandwagon jumpers, psychics, attention seekers beyond that.

She may have been sedated most of the time and died on the 1st. The 2nd is for me the date of 'handover' and I don't think either of the McCanns did anything personally. I think that was arranged by Murat . Dr. Roberts analysis of the 2nd is interesting.

I am sure they did love her, but even the best parents get exasperated at times and worn to a frazzle by their children and we have been told that Madeleine was demanding.

I am in agreement with Aiyoyo that the creche records were sloppily kept; (I believe that MW have 'form' in this area), and I question how much credence can be put on them.

For me Kate's curious statement 'They've taken her' is something which merits further attention. Who is the 'they'? Was Madeleine in their care, when she was 'taken'? In which case there really might have been an abduction although not by some random passing stranger.

Miraflores wrote:I am sure they did love her, but even the best parents get exasperated at times and worn to a frazzle by their children and we have been told that Madeleine was demanding.

I am in agreement with Aiyoyo that the creche records were sloppily kept; (I believe that MW have 'form' in this area), and I question how much credence can be put on them.

For me Kate's curious statement 'They've taken her' is something which merits further attention. Who is the 'they'? Was Madeleine in their care, when she was 'taken'? In which case there really might have been an abduction although not by some random passing stranger.

On the basis of the evidence, 'they've taken her' can only refer to a dead body.

aiyoyo wrote:I believe Maddie met her fate hours earlier than timeline created by mccanns as their alibi for neglect, but not as early as start of holiday.

Then how do you explain the following:

KM/GM deleting so many calls and texts starting from the 1st May?

RM and GM switching their phones off at the same time on the 2nd?

RM and GM switching their phones back on at the same time on the 3rd?

The questionable handwriting entries all week?

But when you say "Maddie met her fate hours earlier than timeline created". Have you tested out that theory on paper yet, to see if that is even feasible?

Alarm was raised at 10pm, they left for dinner around 8.30pm, cadaverine takes over 90 mins to develop. It would take 2 hours to clean the entire apartment of all DNA material on every surface in 6 different areas, which puts TOD before 6 pm. Gerry was playing tennis all this time and Kate is no Superwoman and previously employed a cleaner.

I would say that is not humanly possible, considering how many tiles had to be taken up to recover blood from underneath them. Where did the cleaning materials come from and the waste go to? How did they let the others know what to do next?

For me, this is a far more difficult possibility, compared to the only other one currently on the table.

Interesting don't you think, that no one as yet has come up with any other alernative. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

from Tigger's post :


On the basis of the evidence, 'they've taken her' can only refer to a dead body.

If that is the case, was Kate's panic real, had she returned to the apartment to spend time with her deceased child and did she find that the body had been removed?

russiandoll wrote:from Tigger's post :


On the basis of the evidence, 'they've taken her' can only refer to a dead body.

If that is the case, was Kate's panic real, had she returned to the apartment to spend time with her deceased child and did she find that the body had been removed?

Miraflores didn't take the dogs' evidence into account - neither the impossible timeline of the 3rd. So that's why I said that.

I think the removal was at the latest on the 2nd. There was the cleaning to do. It is possible that she died just after the crying episode on the first, but in that case it's even more heartless than I already fear.
If she died on the night of the 1st - the cleaning lady was due on Wednesday the 2nd. She may have been hidden in the 'blue bag' in the wardrobe for that reason. Murat was in PdL as from the 1st.

The crying episode is the obstacle. I did read that Philomena said that Gerry was very fond of playing tricks on people and particularly good at card tricks.
I still don't put it beyond reasonable doubt that the crying was a recording. Because Kate was likely in 5a at the time, Five or six calls and two minutes after these calls ceased, the crying started. The crying stopped the moment Mrs. Fenn heard the patio doors. We've discussed the usual pattern of comforting a crying child, it doesn't stop abruptly.
Perhaps we should work out a theory with and one without the crying episode. If it was a trick, it worked.

They've taken her', was simply the plot line, just like 'That dingo's taken my baby!'.
Do we have similar ones for e.g. Baby Lisa? The Anthony case?

I agree with Aiyoyo. The idea of a sub is highly improbable imo for various reasons already mentioned. I too believe Madeleine must have died earlier on the 3rd, possibly while GM was still playing tennis. I agree with Stella that there wouldn't have been enough time for the body to remain in the apartment long enough for the cadaver odour to register then taken out to a hiding place, and for the team to clean the apartment and dispose of any incriminating evidence before alerting the police - if one assumes Kate found the body only when she raised alarm. It is feasible however if she died sometime after leaving the creche when she was alone with Kate and the twins.

I believe Kate was actually telling the truth when she said
1. M 'Why didn't you come last night...?'
2. They have taken her (body)

Only the timeline might have got a bit wobbly afterwards in order to fit them around their abduction theory.

Miraflores didn't take the dogs' evidence into account - neither the impossible timeline of the 3rd. So that's why I said that.

I didn't mention it although I hadn't ignored it - I questioned the strange statement about the 'they' who had taken her. I think it's perfectly feasible that Madeleine could have died earlier that day, which would explain the cadaver odour. As to the timeline - we have precious little confirmation of what was happening after 5:30 pm - and the times before that are sketchy, so there could have been time to do a clean up.

Ribisl wrote:I agree with Aiyoyo. The idea of a sub is highly improbable imo for various reasons already mentioned. I too believe Madeleine must have died earlier on the 3rd, possibly while GM was still playing tennis. I agree with Stella that there wouldn't have been enough time for the body to remain in the apartment long enough for the cadaver odour to register then taken out to a hiding place, and for the team to clean the apartment and dispose of any incriminating evidence before alerting the police - if one assumes Kate found the body only when she raised alarm. It is feasible however if she died sometime after leaving the creche when she was alone with Kate and the twins.

I believe Kate was actually telling the truth when she said
1. M 'Why didn't you come last night...?'
2. They have taken her (body)

Only the timeline might have got a bit wobbly afterwards in order to fit them around their abduction theory.

I have to disagree on a couple of things here. Sub or no, I really don't believe that death while Gerry was playing tennis would allow any where near enough time to clear up before 'kick-off time' at ten. In between 'high tea', Gerry returning from tennis and both leaving for Tapas gives Kate, and ??? no more than three hours to clean up, get rid of incriminating cleaning materials etc etc. It was said the curtains had been washed - they'dve still been soaking wet, surely??? Bear in mind, allegedly no access to a car so it wouldve taken that much longer to get body safely away from OC and PdL (Which I am convinced it was, and long beforehand)

I don't believe Maddie asked the 'Why didn't you come...' question at any time. Its just not in a three year old's vocabulary for starters.

Does anyone know which day Kate purchased the cleaning materials at Batista Supermarket???

It was said the curtains had been washed - they'dve still been soaking wet, surely???

I have seen the statement about the curtains being washed a number of times. Where does it come from - can anyone quote a reliable source?

Miraflores wrote:

It was said the curtains had been washed - they'dve still been soaking wet, surely???

I have seen the statement about the curtains being washed a number of times. Where does it come from - can anyone quote a reliable source?

Very good point, there were washing machines in the apartments, perhaps with a drying cycle? In any case, wet curtains argue for an earlier death.

tigger wrote:

Miraflores wrote:

It was said the curtains had been washed - they'dve still been soaking wet, surely???

I have seen the statement about the curtains being washed a number of times. Where does it come from - can anyone quote a reliable source?

Very good point, there were washing machines in the apartments, perhaps with a drying cycle? In any case, wet curtains argue for an earlier death.

Just had a quick look at news articles and found this on mccannfiles. Just past halfway down the page, an article from the Sunday Mirror, which of course has now been whooshed...............

THE inquiry turned dramatically against the McCanns when two British police sniffer dogs detected the scent of death in their holiday apartment

CURTAINS in the flat - said to have had blood on them - were washed after Madeleine's disappearance



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


Is there something in the PJ files about this?

Curtains washed - sheets washed. Could the sheets have maybe been the curtains and knowing full well how noisy washing machines are spinning etc., and someone may have heard so we had soiled sheets? Obviously a washing machine running in 5a would have been heard by Mrs Fenn above? So could they have been taken to another apartment for washing? Just another question to throw into the mix. Need to find something conclusive that curtains were washed.

rainbow-fairy wrote:Does anyone know which day Kate purchased the cleaning materials at Batista Supermarket???

Do we have a statement about this from anyone? Can't say I remember it.

Even if the curtains went into the washer/dryer to remove blood stains, there would be now even less time on the 3rd to complete everything. Someone had to remove all of the curtain hooks, wash + dry, then put all the curtain hooks back on, to hang it back up.

Keela alerted to blood at the bottom of the curtain, where it was in contact with the floor, so they must have been washed at some point. The question is when? I cannot believe it was on the 3rd after 5.30pm.

Stella wrote:Even if the curtains went into the washer/dryer to remove blood stains, there would be now even less time on the 3rd to complete everything. Someone had to remove all of the curtain hooks, wash + dry, then put all the curtain hooks back on, to hang it back up.

Keela alerted to blood at the bottom of the curtain, where it was in contact with the floor, so they must have been washed at some point. The question is when? I cannot believe it was on the 3rd after 5.30pm.

It doesn't take too long to wash curtains and dry them. I have done it in 2 hours, the curtains were lined as well. They look to be of a cotton type of material so it wouldn't take long imo.