Where was Murat's daughter during April 28th and May 5th 2007

by bobbin Mon 14 May - 18:54

Was she in Praia da Luz or in the UK. Does anyone have any information on this.

by Snifferdog Mon 14 May - 18:58

She was supposed to be in the UK but I believe she traveled with the mccs and the twins to Portugal posing as Maddy. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Such a coincidence that Murat was in UK in April 2007........

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

by bobbin Mon 14 May - 19:06

Snifferdog wrote:She was supposed to be in the UK but I believe she travelled with the mccs and the twins to Portugal posing as Maddy. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Now that is very interesting. Has anybody got any info on any research that has been done to establish if she was NOT in the UK ?

How does this compare with the creche signing in theories of McCann and the Naylor daughter ?

by uppatoffee Mon 14 May - 19:08

She doesn't look anything like Madeleine. She lives in England with her mother Dawn. She is seven months older and looks a lot healthier than the Madeleine we have seen in some photos.

by Guest Mon 14 May - 19:17

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

There is some information and photos of the Murat family here. Beware of the awful flashing background if you have sensory issues as I do!

I don't think that Sofia looks anything like Madeleine but then again, in most photos, Madeleine doesn't look like herself either.

by bobbin Mon 14 May - 19:18

uppatoffee wrote:She doesn't look anything like Madeleine. She lives in England with her mother Dawn. She is seven months older and looks a lot healthier than the Madeleine we have seen in some photos.

I'm sure you're right uppatoffee, but that doesn't answer the question. Given that some subterfuge has been perpetrated somewhere or other for a 3 year old Maddie to just 'disappear', all theories are open to inspection and rejection if they can be shown to be incorrect.

Maddie was postulated as being around 100 cms, instead of the little girl we see in photos claimed to be of her. We do not know what she looked like, or whether the people who would have seen the 'girl in creche' would know what the real Maddie looked like.

The question is, is there any absolute information that Murat's daughter was actually registered and witnessed as present in the UK during the dates 28th April to 3rd May 2007.

by Snifferdog Mon 14 May - 19:21

I have been examining the photographs of Madeleine and have even done some composite drawings which unfortunately I am unable to post on the forum. The Madeleine as we see her on the "iconic" photos so regularly bandied about are heavily photoshopped and superimposed images of the two. No one is sure as to what Madeleine looked like as we have been lied to from start to finish. It is very difficult to explain it without showing what I have done. If you examine Sophies eyes and compare them to Madeleines you may see what I am talking about and understand why the doctored pics of Maddie often show photo shopping around the eyes that makes her look like she is wearing make up. If you study Sophies eyes you will also notice that her eyelashes are very dark. I think the photo shopping was done to confuse anyone not involved in the con game. There are also similarities in poses adopted in Sophies photos (the two that were released into the media) and the heavily photo shopped ones of Madeleine. Seven months is not such a huge difference, and they would not be seen together anyway

by **tigger** Mon 14 May - 19:28

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

There is some information and photos of the Murat family here. Beware of the awful flashing background if you have sensory issues as I do!

I don't think that Sofia looks anything like Madeleine but then again, in most photos, Madeleine doesn't look like herself either.

I don't think so Snifferdog. She looks nothing like Maddie at that time. Besides, she would have had to look like the poster girl - if there was a sub, the sub would have looked like the poster, not that Maddie did, but Sophia is definitely out. I don't think we should post much about her, it's not fair to her if her schoolmates come across these posts.
Same goes for the twins, but it seems they are being pushed into the limelight by their parents. We can only help them by not posting about the twins except when it's relevant in the case, which was when they were very young. Pre September 07 more or less. It's their parents who keep shoving them into the news.

More than enough people have been damaged by this ghastly circus, at least we can keep the children out of it.

by bobbin Mon 14 May - 19:33

tigger wrote:
Jean wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

There is some information and photos of the Murat family here. Beware of the awful flashing background if you have sensory issues as I do!

I don't think that Sofia looks anything like Madeleine but then again, in most photos, Madeleine doesn't look like herself either.

I don't think so Snifferdog. She looks nothing like Maddie at that time. Besides, she would have had to look like the poster girl - if there was a sub, the sub would have looked like the poster, not that Maddie did, but Sophia is definitely out. I don't think we should post much about her, it's not fair to her if her schoolmates come across these posts.
Same goes for the twins, but it seems they are being pushed into the limelight by their parents. We can only help them by not posting about the twins except when it's relevant in the case, which was when they were very young. Pre September 07 more or less. It's their parents who keep shoving them into the news.

More than enough people have been damaged by this ghastly circus, at least we can keep the children out of it.

I completely agree Tigger, re involving the children, however, the question is, was any research done, or is their any information to establish if the child was in the UK during that time or not.

by Snifferdog Mon 14 May - 19:56

Actually I can't say what Maddie looks like, having seen photos from the TM only. And as I don't believe ANYTHING they say why should I believe the photos they release which are so obviously tampered with. Yes I am sorry for the children that are dragged into the mess, but unfortunately they are now involved because of the selfishness and greed of the parents. I know what I see and as I said earlier I am unable to post the drawings and photos up onto this site. Think of a MacBook in the hands of a MacCann, picture the photobooth programme on it, and how you can actually widen a face with it or even split it in half. In one photo of Maddie her eyes are impossibly far apart and the side of her head shows when it should be hidden. I do a lot of figurative painting and know what I am talking about. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **tigger** Mon 14 May - 20:16

Snifferdog wrote:Actually I can't say what Maddie looks like, having seen photos from the TM only. And as I don't believe ANYTHING they say why should I believe the photos they release which are so obviously tampered with. Yes I am sorry for the children that are dragged into the mess, but unfortunately they are now involved because of the selfishness and greed of the parents. I know what I see and as I said earlier I am unable to post the drawings and photos up onto this site. Think of a MacBook in the hands of a MacCann, picture the photobooth programme on it, and how you can actually widen a face with it or even split it in half. In one photo of Maddie her eyes are impossibly far apart and the side of her head shows when it should be hidden. I do a lot of figurative painting and know what I am talking about. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Well, finally a sympathy vote for my obsession with the doctored photos. Have a look at the topic 'pictures taken on the same day' HD so full screen - all of non doctored photos! Quite a difference. I have taught lifedrawing and you'd not believe how much trouble it is to get a head sitting properly on the neck.
I totally agree with the generally amateur photoshopping. But my point was that the girl standing in for Maddie had to look something like the poster girl at the very least and the description that went with it. Which was more of a girl about 2.5 yrs.
Have you noticed the amount of eye make up in many pictures? Mascara and bit of eyeliner.

by monkey mind Mon 14 May - 20:27

bobbin wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:She was supposed to be in the UK but I believe she travelled with the mccs and the twins to Portugal posing as Maddy. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Now that is very interesting. Has anybody got any info on any research that has been done to establish if she was NOT in the UK ?

How does this compare with the creche signing in theories of McCann and the Naylor daughter ?

Well, if we are discussing this theoretically, then as I see it there's quite a big problem with it - not the use of a sub itself, on the contrary, certain factors point to this as a possibility, but the use of this child would be unlikely I feel. The biggest problem is the name. The creche records indicate that a 'Maddie' was signed in morning and afternoon every day. For there to be a sub she would have to be 3 to 4 years old and not let slip to the creche staff that her real name was not Maddie. You can teach a child of that age a certain amount of acting, tell her it's a game and so on, but she would never keep it up, she would give it away time and again, no way of controlling what a child of that age says. Which makes it very convenient that the twins slept all through that night when the nasty Portuguese police may have wanted to ask them if they saw their sister wandering around. Who knows what they might have said "Maddie not here!" or something similar.....

No, the only way to be sure would be to have a child called Maddie, perhaps one that was particular, and insisted on being called Madeleine. Hmmm.

by Lady-Heather Mon 14 May - 20:46

monkey mind wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:She was supposed to be in the UK but I believe she travelled with the mccs and the twins to Portugal posing as Maddy. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Now that is very interesting. Has anybody got any info on any research that has been done to establish if she was NOT in the UK ?

How does this compare with the creche signing in theories of McCann and the Naylor daughter ?

Well, if we are discussing this theoretically, then as I see it there's quite a big problem with it - not the use of a sub itself, on the contrary, certain factors point to this as a possibility, but the use of this child would be unlikely I feel. The biggest problem is the name. The creche records indicate that a 'Maddie' was signed in morning and afternoon every day. For there to be a sub she would have to be 3 to 4 years old and not let slip to the creche staff that her real name was not Maddie. You can teach a child of that age a certain amount of acting, tell her it's a game and so on, but she would never keep it up, she would give it away time and again, no way of controlling what a child of that age says. Which makes it very convenient that the twins slept all through that night when the nasty Portuguese police may have wanted to ask them if they saw their sister wandering around. Who knows what they might have said "Maddie not here!" or something similar.....

No, the only way to be sure would be to have a child called Maddie, perhaps one that was particular, and insisted on being called Madeleine. Hmmm.

How convenient would it be if there was another child there, that same week, also called 'Madeline'. Perhaps another guest's child, or that of a resident .. bingo! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Spaniel Mon 14 May - 21:30

tigger wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:Actually I can't say what Maddie looks like, having seen photos from the TM only. And as I don't believe ANYTHING they say why should I believe the photos they release which are so obviously tampered with. Yes I am sorry for the children that are dragged into the mess, but unfortunately they are now involved because of the selfishness and greed of the parents. I know what I see and as I said earlier I am unable to post the drawings and photos up onto this site. Think of a MacBook in the hands of a MacCann, picture the photobooth programme on it, and how you can actually widen a face with it or even split it in half. In one photo of Maddie her eyes are impossibly far apart and the side of her head shows when it should be hidden. I do a lot of figurative painting and know what I am talking about. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Well, finally a sympathy vote for my obsession with the doctored photos. Have a look at the topic 'pictures taken on the same day' HD so full screen - all of non doctored photos! Quite a difference. I have taught lifedrawing and you'd not believe how much trouble it is to get a head sitting properly on the neck.
I totally agree with the generally amateur photoshopping. But my point was that the girl standing in for Maddie had to look something like the poster girl at the very least and the description that went with it. Which was more of a girl about 2.5 yrs.
Have you noticed the amount of eye make up in many pictures? Mascara and bit of eyeliner.

I've searched for the topic "pictures taken on the same day" without success.Maybe that wasn't the title?

by Guest Mon 14 May - 22:03

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

by Snifferdog Mon 14 May - 23:06

tigger wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:Actually I can't say what Maddie looks like, having seen photos from the TM only. And as I don't believe ANYTHING they say why should I believe the photos they release which are so obviously tampered with. Yes I am sorry for the children that are dragged into the mess, but unfortunately they are now involved because of the selfishness and greed of the parents. I know what I see and as I said earlier I am unable to post the drawings and photos up onto this site. Think of a MacBook in the hands of a MacCann, picture the photobooth programme on it, and how you can actually widen a face with it or even split it in half. In one photo of Maddie her eyes are impossibly far apart and the side of her head shows when it should be hidden. I do a lot of figurative painting and know what I am talking about. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Well, finally a sympathy vote for my obsession with the doctored photos. Have a look at the topic 'pictures taken on the same day' HD so full screen - all of non doctored photos! Quite a difference. I have taught lifedrawing and you'd not believe how much trouble it is to get a head sitting properly on the neck.
I totally agree with the generally amateur photoshopping. But my point was that the girl standing in for Maddie had to look something like the poster girl at the very least and the description that went with it. Which was more of a girl about 2.5 yrs.
Have you noticed the amount of eye make up in many pictures? Mascara and bit of eyeliner.

Yes she does look as though she is wearing mascara/liner though suspect it to be photoshopped. One cannot know how old/tall she is in the various photos as many seem to be different to each other. They could well be photos of various nieces who knows? Murats daughter has very dark eyes and eyelashes. In some of the photos one can definitely see the eyes have been photoshopped as the iris colour is impossibly blotchy and the whole eye on her left is placed too high up. pupil in the wrong position. The one I am referring to is the one on Wikipedia where her mouth slightly apart. The mouth itself looks very strange to me. Her chin is way to prominent for a young child her age who is still developing and growing.. I think Madeleine did not go to PDL with her parents they would need a stand in for the passport to be stamped. Once in PDL it would not matter if she was called by another name as the creche records look fake and I think the creche sheets are just another mccn red herring to be honest. The same goes for the Tapas reservation sheets. I think that the children were basically just dropped off in the creche room with not much formality. Therefore Sophie could quite well have just been called by her own name. The managers of the resort would not like to admit that their creche was not as secure. Perhaps there was another little girl by the name of Maddie there, and she came to be thought of as the mccns child. The chin of a few of the Madeleine pics also looks too pronounced for a little girl of her age whose facial structure is still developing and growing, When deciding on anything mccn one has to always look for the ulterior motive behind it. I believe none of their suspect stories as they have a bad track record. When they protest to much you know a lie is on its way

by **tigger** Mon 14 May - 23:31

I take it you mean the poster photo, Snifferdog? In many photos it looks as if the right side of her face is a little lower. It's more noticable in the early ones.
The photo you're talking about was a master stroke, the surprised questioning expression on her little face, as if she doesn't know what next to do, the parted lips, the porcelain skin and the wide eyes and that thunderbolt marking! You'd as soon think of kicking a puppy as not doing all you can for this muppet.

Except she was nothing like that and her other pictures don't sell anywhere near as many papers.

Note: they had a passport for her with her baby photo. They didn't need a sub to come with them, if there was one. Passport aren't stamped anymore in the EU.

by Spaniel Mon 14 May - 23:55

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

Oh thankyou Jean.

by monkey mind Tue 15 May - 2:04

Snifferdog,
Quote “Once in PDL it would not matter if she was called by another name as the creche records look fake and I think the creche sheets are just another mccn red herring to be honest. The same goes for the Tapas reservation sheets.”

I find it difficult to comprehend why some people are so ready to dismiss the creche sheets. I know some people find it difficult to comprehend them, it’s a complicated business, but to simply dismiss them and all they imply as a red herring just won’t do. Thankfully the PJ didn’t regard them as red herrings, they even held some back.

Quote “I think that the children were basically just dropped off in the creche room with not much formality. Therefore Sophie could quite well have just been called by her own name.”

This really is rather silly. How do they explain that to the creche nannies when they ask why their daughter keeps insisting she be called by another name, that Maddie is not her name?

by **tigger** Tue 15 May - 2:24

I'm really not in favour of a sub imported from the UK. Much simpler to just turn up with a friend of yours and sign in his daughter if he wants to help me out.
Yes, I'm really not happy about this sub business, but if there was one, it had to be very early.

There is also a very real possibility that the creche sheets were adjusted - the nannies don't strike me as being very precise.
I didn't go into the creche sheets much, because - unless you have them all printed out, it's rather confusing. The sub is a complication too much unless an already present girl was signed in by Gerry or unless one of the nannies 'helped them out' by getting Gerry to sign the sheets at a later date.

They were very close with the nannies. If Maddie only didn't show up on the 2nd, it could easily have been corrected.
One thing - why didn't the nannies ever say anything about the photographs that look nothing like her?
If we can work out how reliable the nannies were, we can make other assumptions on the creche sheets.

If Maddie could be absent without an official sub having to take her place so much the better. Otherwise I'm stuck with a sub for the moment.

by monkey mind Tue 15 May - 4:34

tigger wrote:I'm really not in favour of a sub imported from the UK. Much simpler to just turn up with a friend of yours and sign in his daughter if he wants to help me out.
Yes, I'm really not happy about this sub business, but if there was one, it had to be very early.

There is also a very real possibility that the creche sheets were adjusted - the nannies don't strike me as being very precise.
I didn't go into the creche sheets much, because - unless you have them all printed out, it's rather confusing. The sub is a complication too much unless an already present girl was signed in by Gerry or unless one of the nannies 'helped them out' by getting Gerry to sign the sheets at a later date.

They were very close with the nannies. If Maddie only didn't show up on the 2nd, it could easily have been corrected.
One thing - why didn't the nannies ever say anything about the photographs that look nothing like her?
If we can work out how reliable the nannies were, we can make other assumptions on the creche sheets.

If Maddie could be absent without an official sub having to take her place so much the better. Otherwise I'm stuck with a sub for the moment.

It isn't easy to float the idea of a sub in the mental ethers. But, if Maddie wasn't there on the second, she darned sure wasn't there on ther third and the dizzy simpleton nannies now become double dizzy. So if one entertains the possibility that it didn't happen as they say, simultaneously allowing for the cadaver dog evidence and the timeframes that implies then we are left to account for those records. Sinply trying to explain them away as altered after the fact doesn't do for this too has to be suitably explained within context of the whole affair. So, if she wasn't there for say two days, equally, she may not have been in the creche at all that entire week. C'est la vie......

by Snifferdog Tue 15 May - 4:59

Perhaps I have not explained my thoughts very well, if there was no creche records, and children were brought into the creche sometimes collectively or individually I don't see why the nannies would try and match up the children with the parents. The creche records look like a mess to me, and inconsistent. Perhaps OC could not afford to buy a proper register for parents to sign? As they advertised a baby service which promised much more than clients actually got it would be very damaging for them OC for this to come out. The nannies testimonies were not the best either. Each one covering their own backs I think. If Madeleine did not come to PDL with her parents it may have been noted by some other traveler who may have remembered seeing the family in transit or arriving. I must say I am not too clued up on EU passports, but even if it does not have to be stamped one still needs one surely, otherwise why have one at all?

by Snifferdog Tue 15 May - 6:33

tigger wrote:I take it you mean the poster photo, Snifferdog? In many photos it looks as if the right side of her face is a little lower. It's more noticable in the early ones.
The photo you're talking about was a master stroke, the surprised questioning expression on her little face, as if she doesn't know what next to do, the parted lips, the porcelain skin and the wide eyes and that thunderbolt marking! You'd as soon think of kicking a puppy as not doing all you can for this muppet.

Except she was nothing like that and her other pictures don't sell anywhere near as many papers.

Note: they had a passport for her with her baby photo. They didn't need a sub to come with them, if there was one. Passport aren't stamped anymore in the EU.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
This is the particular picture I was referring to Tigger. Though there are many others. Made totally cockeyed by bad photoshopping.

by uppatoffee Tue 15 May - 8:02

Bobbin - to go back to the original question, I have found the article that I was thinking of that talked about Sofia being in England when Madeleine went missing. It is her mum Dawn saying that Robert (Murat) called her to let her know and to check that Sofia was safe.

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

by friedtomatoes Tue 15 May - 9:04

the most ridiculous theory amongst many
lol!

sorry , just another to eat away at your time and energy

by Guest Tue 15 May - 9:12

Friedtomatoes, I'm not sure if anything beats Team McCann's version of events in terms of sheer silliness and the [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] factor!

by friedtomatoes Tue 15 May - 9:18

Jean wrote:Friedtomatoes, I'm not sure if anything beats Team McCann's version of events in terms of sheer silliness and the [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] factor!

oh i agree absolutely with that but not some of the theories and pronouncements on here

by Snifferdog Tue 15 May - 9:38

friedtomatoes wrote: the most ridiculous theory amongst many

sorry , just another to eat away at your time and energy

Always better to keep an open mind friedtomatoes, and let everyone have their say. That way one ensures one never has to eat humble pie [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Newintown Tue 15 May - 11:09

Snifferdog wrote:
friedtomatoes wrote: the most ridiculous theory amongst many

sorry , just another to eat away at your time and energy
Always better to keep an open mind friedtomatoes, and let everyone have their say. That way one ensures one never has to eat humble pie [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Friedtomatoes seems to have gone from being nicey, nicey in his earlier posts to shooting everyone down in flames now who has an opinion, whether it's off the wall or of a general consensus. Was he a dormant troll who has now awoken to stir things up?

by Snifferdog Tue 15 May - 18:26

Newintown wrote:
Snifferdog wrote:
friedtomatoes wrote: the most ridiculous theory amongst many

sorry , just another to eat away at your time and energy
Always better to keep an open mind friedtomatoes, and let everyone have their say. That way one ensures one never has to eat humble pie [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Friedtomatoes seems to have gone from being nicey, nicey in his earlier posts to shooting everyone down in flames now who has an opinion, whether it's off the wall or of a general consensus. Was he a dormant troll who has now awoken to stir things up?

I think you're right Newintown. As the saying goes, give them enough rope, and they will hang themselves [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]