How old were the twins in PDL?

by turnaround 26.03.12 20:12

Does anyone know their birthdays, ? How old were they on the holiday. Cant find any thing specific.

by Guest 26.03.12 20:17

I think they were 2 years and 3 months, and I think their birthdays are in March. Could be wrong. Needs checking.

by worriedmum 26.03.12 20:24

Their births were registered in February 2005 in Leicester.

by uppatoffee 26.03.12 20:35

Their birthday is 1 February 2005.

by Guest 26.03.12 21:05

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

by Lance De Boils 30.03.12 7:14

Just wondering again about the kids' heights.
According to this chart [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
the average height (50th centile) for a 2yr 3mo old girl is just over 88cm and 50% of girls of that age fall within +/- 2cm of that.

The average height for a girl of 4y 0mo is just under 103cm, with 50% falling between 100 and 105.5cm. Fewer than 4 girls in 1000 will have a height lower than 91cm at 4 yrs of age.

If Madeleine was on or below the 0.4th centile, and Amelie was an average height for her age, then Amelie would have been about the same height as Madeleine in May 2007.

Which confuses me.

Perhaps someone else could take a look at the chart and verify this? It's still earlyish and I have consumed insufficient caffeine!

by uppatoffee 30.03.12 8:13

Lance what you are saying is correct. Might explain why there doesn't look like much difference in size between the twins and Madeleine in the Donegal photos. I'd be surprised if she was really that short though, my daughter is just coming up for 3 and she is average height and she is over 90 cm already.

Even if Kiko's theory about the sub Madalene being used is correct, the sub was only 6 months younger than Madeleine, so would still have been under the 0.4 centile according to these charts.

by rainbow-fairy 30.03.12 8:39

The thing that shocks me, more than anything else, is that the twins were still in nappies! My eldest was long out of nappies by the time I had my second - and he was 2 yrs 4 months by then (and not forward by any means).
Mind you, my youngest, having severe autistic spectrum disorder didn't come out of them until he was nearly four. But then he had good reason I guess!

by **tigger** 30.03.12 8:47

uppatoffee wrote:Lance what you are saying is correct. Might explain why there doesn't look like much difference in size between the twins and Madeleine in the Donegal photos. I'd be surprised if she was really that short though, my daughter is just coming up for 3 and she is average height and she is over 90 cm already.

Even if Kiko's theory about the sub Madalene being used is correct, the sub was only 6 months younger than Madeleine, so would still have been under the 0.4 centile according to these charts.

The problem is that e.g. the tennis photo shows a much lankier girl. We measured her height against the tennis balls which were in the same plane and have a standard diameter. That makes her height something over 110 cm.
I think we've been treated to quite a lot of photos of Maddie at 3 yrs old?
The girl in the playground doesn't look particularly short either. Someone measured her height against the door of the playhouse, but forgot that she was already on the grass and would again be over a meter in height.
I just think the sub was younger and smaller and that's the description we get. Kate said she was a very 'compact' child, something I really don't see except in the very early photographs.
Basically I think the 90 cm was probably the height of the sub, otherwise the nannies would really have been puzzled? After all, she was described as a quiet, obedient child which is a direct contradiction to what her own family said about her.

by Lance De Boils 30.03.12 9:28

Do parents still get those little red books with a record of the first 4 (or was it 5?) years growth and development? Should be obvious from that what sort of height Madeleine would have been in May 07. If she was really as small as they say she was, I would wonder if she was born prematurely, or if there was some other reason for being so small for her age. Neither G nor K are especially short and the twins appear to be typical sizes.

I agree with you, though, that the girl in the photos we have been shown can't be as small as they said. No way. That girls looks like a fairly average just-turning-4 year old to me.

I believe 2 to be an average age to start potty training, btw.

by turnaround 30.03.12 11:00

rainbow-fairy wrote:The thing that shocks me, more than anything else, is that the twins were still in nappies! My eldest was long out of nappies by the time I had my second - and he was 2 yrs 4 months by then (and not forward by any means).
Mind you, my youngest, having severe autistic spectrum disorder didn't come out of them until he was nearly four. But then he had good reason I guess!

both mine were out of nappies when they were two, yes i did put them on at night, but mostly they were dry. but when your on your hols you spend a lot of time outside anyway, so any nappy changing , except for morning and bed times/bath, usually gets dumped in the big bins outside. And I don't believe they didn't have any nappy bags either. Kate dosen't look like the type to throw out nappies without them smelling good. They are only £1 for about a thousand.

by Look4Maddy 30.03.12 11:23

turnaround wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:The thing that shocks me, more than anything else, is that the twins were still in nappies! My eldest was long out of nappies by the time I had my second - and he was 2 yrs 4 months by then (and not forward by any means).
Mind you, my youngest, having severe autistic spectrum disorder didn't come out of them until he was nearly four. But then he had good reason I guess!

both mine were out of nappies when they were two, yes i did put them on at night, but mostly they were dry. but when your on your hols you spend a lot of time outside anyway, so any nappy changing , except for morning and bed times/bath, usually gets dumped in the big bins outside. And I don't believe they didn't have any nappy bags either. Kate dosen't look like the type to throw out nappies without them smelling good. They are only £1 for about a thousand.

My friends baby girl, is turning 3in July, and shes just being potty trained now. She's only child and gets lots of attention. So don't really find that weird...

by rainbow-fairy 30.03.12 11:59

Look4Maddy wrote:
turnaround wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:The thing that shocks me, more than anything else, is that the twins were still in nappies! My eldest was long out of nappies by the time I had my second - and he was 2 yrs 4 months by then (and not forward by any means).
Mind you, my youngest, having severe autistic spectrum disorder didn't come out of them until he was nearly four. But then he had good reason I guess!

both mine were out of nappies when they were two, yes i did put them on at night, but mostly they were dry. but when your on your hols you spend a lot of time outside anyway, so any nappy changing , except for morning and bed times/bath, usually gets dumped in the big bins outside. And I don't believe they didn't have any nappy bags either. Kate dosen't look like the type to throw out nappies without them smelling good. They are only £1 for about a thousand.

My friends baby girl, is turning 3in July, and shes just being potty trained now. She's only child and gets lots of attention. So don't really find that weird...

Being an only child who gets lots of attention, I'd more expect her to be potty-trained EARLIER rather than later - more time to devote to it etc.
But, each child is different, granted.
Look4Maddy, do you find it 'odd' that a couple of middle-class doctors, who surely would be aware of all the nasties present in faeces, were allegedly carrying around old unwrapped soiled nappies in the back of their RENTED car, mixed in with unwashed clothes etc? Because I certainly do.

by Guest 30.03.12 12:25

I certainly don't find it unlikely that children of 27 months could still be in nappies. My son was until he was nearly 3 - they all get there eventually at their own pace.

by Lady-Heather 30.03.12 15:37

Jean wrote:I certainly don't find it unlikely that children of 27 months could still be in nappies. My son was until he was nearly 3 - they all get there eventually at their own pace.

Agreed, same in my experience. Although I have found that girls 'get there' quicker than boys for some reason.

According to 'a source close to the McCann's', the villa they stayed at had no 'proper dustbins' and they had to carry rubbish & waste to the local disposal area. This is how they explained why the dogs detected cadaver odour in the hire car - because the dogs confused rotting meat and stale nappies with the scent of a dead body. Seriously, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by turnaround 30.03.12 17:10

Well I was thinking about the twins age wondering if it is possible that when they turn 5, they would be role playing and adding Madeleine in there playtime, as if she was still there, I wondered how childrens memory fared. Would a child aged 27 months everyday be pretending she is still there with them?

by rainbow-fairy 30.03.12 17:55

Lady-Heather wrote:
Jean wrote:I certainly don't find it unlikely that children of 27 months could still be in nappies. My son was until he was nearly 3 - they all get there eventually at their own pace.

Agreed, same in my experience. Although I have found that girls 'get there' quicker than boys for some reason.

According to 'a source close to the McCann's', the villa they stayed at had no 'proper dustbins' and they had to carry rubbish & waste to the local disposal area. This is how they explained why the dogs detected cadaver odour in the hire car - because the dogs confused rotting meat and stale nappies with the scent of a dead body. Seriously, [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Its just beyond belief isn't it?
Can you imagine the headlines and furore if this were a working-class family or worse still, on benefits?
'Feral Mum leaves Kids alone Whilst Boozing' with the byline 'Skanky Mum-from-Hell carried soiled nappies in amongst the laundry in her car'
You can bet the comments section would have at least one 'moral majority' stating that 'people like this should be forcibly sterilised'.
This admiration of Team McCann makes me sick. Such double standards.
BTW, do they actually think ANYONE would fall for the 'dirty nappies' tosh? Oops - forgot - there are plenty who have swallowed their lies whole, aren't there?

by Guest 30.03.12 18:10

turnaround wrote:Well I was thinking about the twins age wondering if it is possible that when they turn 5, they would be role playing and adding Madeleine in there playtime, as if she was still there, I wondered how childrens memory fared. Would a child aged 27 months everyday be pretending she is still there with them?

Turnaround, they are 7 years old now! I'm doubtful that, without constant reminders from their parents, they would have any memories of Madeleine at all.

by rainbow-fairy 30.03.12 18:34

Jean wrote:
turnaround wrote:Well I was thinking about the twins age wondering if it is possible that when they turn 5, they would be role playing and adding Madeleine in there playtime, as if she was still there, I wondered how childrens memory fared. Would a child aged 27 months everyday be pretending she is still there with them?

Turnaround, they are 7 years old now! I'm doubtful that, without constant reminders from their parents, they would have any memories of Madeleine at all.

Don't forget the constant feeding of the 'bad man' who stole her, 'like burgalry (sic)'. Mental cruelty is the word for what they are doing to those twins.
Kate has now said that they are recalling events prior to PdL, which has 'thrown her'. Why would it 'throw you'? Wouldn't you be delighted they have their own memories of things? I guess most normal parents would. Trouble is Kate and Gerry just want the twins to have their sanitised version.
But I say good, they are remembering things. Maybe they'll be able to add that elusive face to Jane Tanner's egg-man?

by **tigger** 30.03.12 19:56

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Jean wrote:
turnaround wrote:Well I was thinking about the twins age wondering if it is possible that when they turn 5, they would be role playing and adding Madeleine in there playtime, as if she was still there, I wondered how childrens memory fared. Would a child aged 27 months everyday be pretending she is still there with them?

Turnaround, they are 7 years old now! I'm doubtful that, without constant reminders from their parents, they would have any memories of Madeleine at all.
Don't forget the constant feeding of the 'bad man' who stole her, 'like burgalry (sic)'. Mental cruelty is the word for what they are doing to those twins.
Kate has now said that they are recalling events prior to PdL, which has 'thrown her'. Why would it 'throw you'? Wouldn't you be delighted they have their own memories of things? I guess most normal parents would. Trouble is Kate and Gerry just want the twins to have their sanitised version.
But I say good, they are remembering things. Maybe they'll be able to add that elusive face to Jane Tanner's egg-man?

They've never really thought it through it seems. In the beginning Kate could even afford to state that the twins never had much to do with Maddie, so yes, if they were not constantly reminded, they would have no memory of her at all. It was never 'the three' it was always two and one. They never thought it an issue until they were rumbled - then the twins suddenly missed Maddie terribly and she had to come back so that they could be a 'family' again. Not one I'd want to be a member of in any case.

They are imo unfit parents. Kate never had any conception of the relationship between a toddler of Maddie's age and herself - you're not 'best friends' at that age, you're her mother for goodness sakes.
Now the twins are of an age where they will talk with class mates who have full access to the internet. Classmates who have parents who may not believe the McCann story. I very much doubt that all of Rothley supports them. It's going to be a nightmare and impossible to contain.

Not entirely on topic, but I have once read somewhere that the twins may not be taken out of the UK. Might that be because of the ward of court status of Maddie? I think they all went to Canada late 2007 and that was the last time they could go abroad. May be entirely wrong about this but would be interesting to know. If it is the WOC status of their sister it must be somewhere in the rule book?

by Gillyspot 30.03.12 21:23

When the twins are old enough to read the internet they will surely search it for information on the disappearance of their sister.

IMO neither Kate nor Gerry have thought enough what reaction they will get back from their children once they are adults. Imagine them reading this.

"But Kate is said to be so upset at having to leave four-year-olds Sean and Amelie she has been on the brink of pulling out. A close friend revealed: "Kate was in turmoil. She's been with the twins almost constantly. They have a very special relationship.

"She thought about taking them with her but the children would have faced a long flight and a six-hour time difference. It would be too tiring for them and too disruptive to their normal routine." Instead, the twins will stay at home in Rothley, Leics, in the care of relatives until the parents' expected return on Sunday."

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

Yet back in May 2007 Kate apparently didn't think enough of the twins to stay back in PDL whilst Gerry toured the world and met the Pope.

The twins are the new cuddlecat. ergo a stage prop to be used as and when required in my opinion. This gets me so mad!

by Guest 31.03.12 8:48

Jean wrote:
turnaround wrote:Well I was thinking about the twins age wondering if it is possible that when they turn 5, they would be role playing and adding Madeleine in there playtime, as if she was still there, I wondered how childrens memory fared. Would a child aged 27 months everyday be pretending she is still there with them?

Turnaround, they are 7 years old now! I'm doubtful that, without constant reminders from their parents, they would have any memories of Madeleine at all.

Kate said this in the Swedish interview[snipped from Joana Morais article........

“Well obviously they were very young, but they have re-counted things that happened prior to May 2007, which has kind of thrown me a little bit.”

[snipped]

She tells us too, that the twins are able to re-collect events prior to May 2007 which she states has “thrown her”. In what way one might wonder? Does Kate McCann hope that they may recall the night of 3rd May 2007 and be able to throw some light as to who removed Madeleine from Apt 5A? Does it worry her that they might remember something crucial, or, was she simply thwarting an unwelcome question by the interviewer when he made the point that the twins may be too young to actually remember Madeleine?

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

by Estelle 31.03.12 9:30

IMO Maddie's disappearance was a well-planned event to take place while the twins were too young to remember Maddie. I doubt whether they have ever mentioned her to the twins since.

I predict that they have invented stories since about the twins and Maddie for the media but I don't believe them.

IMO Maddie was an unwanted child and family and friends have also been told not to mention her now especially not in front of the twins.

by **tigger** 31.03.12 19:12

Estelle wrote:IMO Maddie's disappearance was a well-planned event to take place while the twins were too young to remember Maddie. I doubt whether they have ever mentioned her to the twins since.

I predict that they have invented stories since about the twins and Maddie for the media but I don't believe them.

IMO Maddie was an unwanted child and family and friends have also been told not to mention her now especially not in front of the twins.

Maddie was sent to Gerry's family for Christmas in 2005 - the first Christmas with the twins. That alone should have set alarm bells ringing. The videos too show no familiarity of three siblings, the twins might simply have seen her as one of the visitors. Even the little scene in the hallway shows no interaction to speak of, it has to be coached out of Maddie.

Kate has told us in so many words that Maddie was a disappointment, the family told us she was difficult and either Eileen or Philomena told the press that she wouldn't have left 5a without screaming the place down.

I now wait with trepidation for the constructed memory of the twins to come out in Kate's next work of fiction.

"Mummy, what was that nasty man with the long moustaches and the big teeth doing in the cupboard?'
'Mummy, Daddy, we woke up when we heard the shutters going up and the nasty man came in and took Maddie...'