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

Snifferdog wrote:

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.]

Seems my assessment a week or so ago was spot on. Strange how one or two are so anti the creche records and sub theory whilst some very experienced investigators and researchers think they bear scrutiny and the PJ also held some of those records back. I know whose corner I'd rather be in....

monkey mind wrote:

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......

I missed your post yesterday - due to infestation I believe..

Yes - completely agree. There are a number of reasons why a sub would make more sense right from the start- we are stuck with the playground photos . Stuck with the inaccurate (this has been proved) creche records. The absence of id band on Maddie's 2 photos ( would expect those to be kept on in between the sessions) Both of those are probably not from that week in any case.

I still have a theory that the pool photo has Amelie pasted in and that it was taken some 7 -8 months earlier. I think they'd been to PdL before. Possibly for a weekend. Then the playground photos can be explained as well. These could all still be on the camera in 2007. They would then also have seen the lay out of the OC. Because they were jolly unlucky to get that vulnerable corner apartment.
Just throwing this in the pot no definite thoughts on it at all.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]I think talk of subs and edited Photos seriously undermines all the other excellent work by forum members. Just my opinion of course.

david_uk wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]I think talk of subs and edited Photos seriously undermines all the other excellent work by forum members. Just my opinion of course.

Just for the record, I do not agree with Snifferdog's take on the photoshopping and pretty well everything else he writes. Absolute nonsense.
I just told him she had a slightly lop sided face and he changed that to all sorts of manipulation. Most people do but in her early photos it's very noticable.

I am convinced that many are photoshopped, simply to prop up the myth and for marketing purposes. (such as the eye defect and the blatant Everton t-shirt link to Soham). I do work with CS5.5 mainly and it's childishly simple to erase all evidence of manipulation. You print a high quality copy on paper and take another photograph of that. No record of anything except the date, which you can change.

As for the sub - that is one option. I do prefer as few complications as possible, but both the creche records and the crying incident - linked with the phone records are not easy to fit into any general theory - all relative of course...(sorry coulnd't resist that!).

I think the truth is much more simple and crude but none the less tragic and despicable. A group secret, A tragic accident. a cover up only because someone in goverment is linked. The main players (Tapas) have fumbled and fallen at every hurdle, its only held together by a protection that binds them all like a figure 8 chain. It will only take one weak link to fail.

david_uk wrote:I think the truth is much more simple and crude but none the less tragic and despicable. A group secret, A tragic accident. a cover up only because someone in goverment is linked. The main players (Tapas) have fumbled and fallen at every hurdle, its only held together by a protection that binds them all like a figure 8 chain. It will only take one weak link to fail.

Agreed!

You make some good points Tigger. As for the photos, I understand what you are saying but refrain from commenting as this is not something I am knowledgeable on. I do know though, as you say, it is very easy to fake or digitally manipulate an image and even the greatest expert would have difficulty authenticating a photo 100%. The pool photo could have been taken months earlier, or even on the 1st day and the reason for its delay in surfacing was to remove the date as you say.

sweetex wrote:

david_uk wrote:I think the truth is much more simple and crude but none the less tragic and despicable. A group secret, A tragic accident. a cover up only because someone in goverment is linked. The main players (Tapas) have fumbled and fallen at every hurdle, its only held together by a protection that binds them all like a figure 8 chain. It will only take one weak link to fail.

Agreed!

Well you may well be right, I won't deny that, but your use of the word 'think' implies you do not know, therefor all possibilities must be considered. As for the talk of a sub or doctored photos undermining the sterling work done by many, you are of course entitled to that opinion but I don't agree. There are proven anomalies with those records which must be explained and there are some people with a lot of years of professional investigating behind them who know they are important and deserve answers. Maybe this is not quite the simple accident cover up some think.

monkey mind wrote:

sweetex wrote:

david_uk wrote:I think the truth is much more simple and crude but none the less tragic and despicable. A group secret, A tragic accident. a cover up only because someone in goverment is linked. The main players (Tapas) have fumbled and fallen at every hurdle, its only held together by a protection that binds them all like a figure 8 chain. It will only take one weak link to fail.

Agreed!

Well you may well be right, I won't deny that, but your use of the word 'think' implies you do not know, therefor all possibilities must be considered. As for the talk of a sub or doctored photos undermining the sterling work done by many, you are of course entitled to that opinion but I don't agree. There are proven anomalies with those records which must be explained and there are some people with a lot of years of professional investigating behind them who know they are important and deserve answers. Maybe this is not quite the simple accident cover up some think.

indeed, I think, as with everyone else we do not know. But I have not seen anything that proves anomalies, I remember reading the last photos threads way back and filed it all with subs and Psychics!.

david_uk wrote:[


indeed, I think, as with everyone else we do not know. But I have not seen anything that proves anomalies, I remember reading the last photos threads way back and filed it all with subs and Psychics!.

I was refering in particular to the anomalies in the creche records. A substitute M would certainly explain those. Perhaps something else could also. Either way, they deserve answers - they can be verified as can any answers. Tangible. To dismiss them or the sub into the psychic category is trite in the extreme. But then I expect you knew that.

david_uk

"indeed, I think, as with everyone else we do not know. But I have
not seen anything that proves anomalies, I remember reading the last
photos threads way back and filed it all with subs and Psychics!."

Yes, we DO NOT KNOW, nor is anything 'PROVEN' yet.

That is precisely why we are still looking, testing every detail, weighing them all up, one against the other.
Each piece of a jigsaw will have no 'relevance' sighted on its own.

It is only when juxtaposed with another complementary bit that it takes on a significance.
Even a gap, of a certain shape can have significance if it helps the searcher to look for a piece that shape.

I would not wish to be arrogant and dismissive of what in the initial phase might seem spurious, or wild ideas since each and everyone of these may have significance at a later stage.

Even to dismiss 'psychics' is risky, since sometimes the perpetrator of an evil act will enjoy tantalising the researchers by dropping information their way.

An open mind, and the determination to continue until a satisfactory outcome is reached is better than 'dismissal' of something that may currently not have significance.

bobbin wrote:david_uk

"indeed, I think, as with everyone else we do not know. But I have
not seen anything that proves anomalies, I remember reading the last
photos threads way back and filed it all with subs and Psychics!."

Yes, we DO NOT KNOW, nor is anything 'PROVEN' yet.

That is precisely why we are still looking, testing every detail, weighing them all up, one against the other.
Each piece of a jigsaw will have no 'relevance' sighted on its own.

It is only when juxtaposed with another complementary bit that it takes on a significance.
Even a gap, of a certain shape can have significance if it helps the searcher to look for a piece that shape.

I would not wish to be arrogant and dismissive of what in the initial phase might seem spurious, or wild ideas since each and everyone of these may have significance at a later stage.

Even to dismiss 'psychics' is risky, since sometimes the perpetrator of an evil act will enjoy tantalising the researchers by dropping information their way.

An open mind, and the determination to continue until a satisfactory outcome is reached is better than 'dismissal' of something that may currently not have significance.

I prefer to stick to more tangible evidence and inconsistencies (inc Creche records).We all have our own thought processes , I am personally happy to dismiss anything involving Photoshopped pics,Substitutes, pre-planned fake abductions etc. Im sure the PJ have already gone through this process and separated the wheat from the chaff, the result being the 48 Questions?. I dont think we should be discussing the children any more than needed and discussions about subs tend to evolve into the bizzarre!,

david_uk wrote:

bobbin wrote:david_uk

"indeed, I think, as with everyone else we do not know. But I have
not seen anything that proves anomalies, I remember reading the last
photos threads way back and filed it all with subs and Psychics!."

Yes, we DO NOT KNOW, nor is anything 'PROVEN' yet.

That is precisely why we are still looking, testing every detail, weighing them all up, one against the other.
Each piece of a jigsaw will have no 'relevance' sighted on its own.

It is only when juxtaposed with another complementary bit that it takes on a significance.
Even a gap, of a certain shape can have significance if it helps the searcher to look for a piece that shape.

I would not wish to be arrogant and dismissive of what in the initial phase might seem spurious, or wild ideas since each and everyone of these may have significance at a later stage.

Even to dismiss 'psychics' is risky, since sometimes the perpetrator of an evil act will enjoy tantalising the researchers by dropping information their way.

An open mind, and the determination to continue until a satisfactory outcome is reached is better than 'dismissal' of something that may currently not have significance.

I prefer to stick to more tangible evidence and inconsistencies (inc Creche records).We all have our own thought processes , I am personally happy to dismiss anything involving Photoshopped pics,Substitutes, pre-planned fake abductions etc. Im sure the PJ have already gone through this process and separated the wheat from the chaff, the result being the 48 Questions?. I dont think we should be discussing the children any more than needed and discussions about subs tend to evolve into the bizzarre!,

I'm quite content that you have your own preferences. As indeed we all have.
It is when your expressed preference is used to:
1. put other people's thought processes down ("indeed, I think, as with everyone else we do not know. But I have not seen anything that proves anomalies, I remember reading the last photos threads way back and filed it all with subs and Psychics!.") or
2. to 'direct' how others think or express their thought processes, (I dont think we should be discussing the children any more than needed
and discussions about subs tend to evolve into the bizzarre!,)
that I feel we should let each person express themselves freely and without feeling that they need to 'toe someone else's line'.
If you don't agree with what you read from someone else, that is fine, and your prerogative. You can say you disagree but you do not need to express it and make others feel afraid to venture into uncharted waters.
As I say, nothing has produced a solution yet, and everything needs to be considered.

In short, rather than try to incorporate all the evidence, you prefer to choose what you consider to be evidence. Pick and mix.

I can't see how discussing a potential substitute can harm any child. It is simply a hypothesis.

We are simply saying that if one constructs a hypothesis, other facts have to support it. So if we say Maddie wasn't at the creche all week - then other facts will have to explain why she was signed in and out. If none of those work, that result will support her being there. The creche records have already been proved to be wrong on some points - so if they were wrong some of the time, can we determine if they were wrong all of the time? Then can we determine how and why?

There is no incontrovertible evidence that Maddie was seen in OC by anyone. Her presence rests on the evidence of her parents and the group which is suspected of collusion.

It's one thing to take the notion of a missing girl, link it to dogs tracing blood and cadaverine in the apartment she went missing from and conclude that, in all probability she died there.

We then have to mix into this how and why the tapas group would comply in covering up, why the British elite would help and so on. It's actually quite a stretch of belief to even come up with one simple thread that ties all the loose ends together. To then extend that to suggesting duplicates, Maddie was never on holiday, the photos are Maddie but Maddie is hidden or teh photos aren't Maddie but she's still hidden - to me adding in all those extra layers of complication do not help build credible theories.

nomendelta wrote:It's one thing to take the notion of a missing girl, link it to dogs tracing blood and cadaverine in the apartment she went missing from and conclude that, in all probability she died there.

We then have to mix into this how and why the tapas group would comply in covering up, why the British elite would help and so on. It's actually quite a stretch of belief to even come up with one simple thread that ties all the loose ends together. To then extend that to suggesting duplicates, Maddie was never on holiday, the photos are Maddie but Maddie is hidden or teh photos aren't Maddie but she's still hidden - to me adding in all those extra layers of complication do not help build credible theories.

said much better than I can. Thank you

david_uk wrote:

nomendelta wrote:It's one thing to take the notion of a missing girl, link it to dogs tracing blood and cadaverine in the apartment she went missing from and conclude that, in all probability she died there.

We then have to mix into this how and why the tapas group would comply in covering up, why the British elite would help and so on. It's actually quite a stretch of belief to even come up with one simple thread that ties all the loose ends together. To then extend that to suggesting duplicates, Maddie was never on holiday, the photos are Maddie but Maddie is hidden or teh photos aren't Maddie but she's still hidden - to me adding in all those extra layers of complication do not help build credible theories.

said much better than I can. Thank you

I thoroughly agree nomendelta, so a big thank you from me too! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

nomendelta wrote:It's one thing to take the notion of a missing girl, link it to dogs tracing blood and cadaverine in the apartment she went missing from and conclude that, in all probability she died there.

We then have to mix into this how and why the tapas group would comply in covering up, why the British elite would help and so on. It's actually quite a stretch of belief to even come up with one simple thread that ties all the loose ends together. To then extend that to suggesting duplicates, Maddie was never on holiday, the photos are Maddie but Maddie is hidden or teh photos aren't Maddie but she's still hidden - to me adding in all those extra layers of complication do not help build credible theories.

I still fail to see how selecting some ideas but not others as being valid lines of investigation is more correct than considering everything until a solution is found.

To me it's not safe to say, this is where the line should be drawn, because that immediately puts one person's line as the one that others should accept. Again, open minds until the solution, leaving everyone free to put their thoughts into the mix, without feeling put down, and out of that mix may well come that combination that yields the solution.

In terms of bizarre, I have never come across anything as bizarre as the McCanns' behaviour throughout this whole affair. It does not stop me from thinking, I want to get to the bottom of this, however bizarre it might appear.

For me, I am always pained by the thought of that little girl, on the airport bus (if it were Madeleine) going on holiday with all the expectations of joy to be had, and whatever happened, time stopped for her and she did not come home.

Now, I will look at anything and everything and would not wish other posters, with the richness of their many different thoughts, from many different angles and walks of life, to feel that they are not free to put their bit into the mix for consideration.

pennylane wrote:

david_uk wrote:

nomendelta wrote:It's one thing to take the notion of a missing girl, link it to dogs tracing blood and cadaverine in the apartment she went missing from and conclude that, in all probability she died there.

We then have to mix into this how and why the tapas group would comply in covering up, why the British elite would help and so on. It's actually quite a stretch of belief to even come up with one simple thread that ties all the loose ends together. To then extend that to suggesting duplicates, Maddie was never on holiday, the photos are Maddie but Maddie is hidden or teh photos aren't Maddie but she's still hidden - to me adding in all those extra layers of complication do not help build credible theories.

said much better than I can. Thank you

I thoroughly agree nomendelta, so a big thank you from me too! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I do feel that assuming a British elite helping at all, never mind why - is just as relevant as the rest of my earlier arguments. There is no actual proof of either. I'm not arguing that Maddie wasn't there at all, I'm saying that the creche records don't add up and imo something having happened to her earlier in the week is a possibility which would in fact pull some other threads, such as the phone activity and the crying episode together.
So then it's logical to see how this could be done. Such as checking the reliability of the nannies.
I can also not see how one can discount the parents producing (by their own admission) a photograph which is out of date and has a non existent feature added.
If one - the most important and well known picture of the girl is in doubt, then so is anything else produced by the same source.
Their statements have been proved to be outright lies in many instances. Therefore, nothing they say can be taken to be the truth.
Whoever is deranged enough to believe that Maddie is hidden somewhere and alive, I don't know. Not me.
The dogs' findings are evidence for me. The DNA discounted or not, is evidence for me.
You may not think the photographs are important, but since medical records were denied and there are plenty of indications that she was not a healthy child, one has to make do with those. It may point to the reason why she died.
Personally, I don't think the T7 were fully involved in whatever scheme was dreamt up. They must have thought it would all blow over in weeks, not being aware of the 'wider agenda'. I think this whole thing started with two participants only and an awful lot of lies - different lies for different people.
Confusion is good for them, the more the better.
But as a source of evidence, the McCanns are out of the question. If I cannot believe some of the things they say, I cannot believe anything they say without independent proof.

quote Tigger

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.

I have made this point before, creche attendance is not obligatory, Maddie could easily have not attended some days with a simple explanation her parents had other plans. Am I missing something here with the attendance? The sheets look to have been tampered with, but I can't understand why a sub would have been needed to prove a girl called Maddie McCann was alive and well and at OC on a certain date..she did not have to attend creche.
Stella a while back made a point of asking why she went late one morning..this was not a school, but a holiday play club for the benefit of families to use as and when they wished, wasn't it?

Russian Doll - It`s been a long time since I studied the creche sheets in detail, but I think you`ll find that Madeleine was signed in and out every day until Thursday.

russiandoll wrote: quote Tigger

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.

I have made this point before, creche attendance is not obligatory, Maddie could easily have not attended some days with a simple explanation her parents had other plans. Am I missing something here with the attendance? The sheets look to have been tampered with, but I can't understand why a sub would have been needed to prove a girl called Maddie McCann was alive and well and at OC on a certain date..she did not have to attend creche.
Stella a while back made a point of asking why she went late one morning..this was not a school, but a holiday play club for the benefit of families to use as and when they wished, wasn't it?

It's true creche wasn't compulsory, but it did mean that it served very well as a ready made record of the presence of a 'Maddie'.
Had she not been signed it at creche and the parents said they were elsewhere, they would need to provide foolproof evidence of where she was, or the suspicion of earlier demise would be under question.

Creche is the simplest way of demonstrating a presence because there is a 'written and signed' reference with supporting phone numbers. All very clear and kosher, on the surface.

My viewpoint is that we need to construct the simplest theory based on the evidence we have access to. This is what Amaral and Pat Brown have both done. Had Amaral started talking about doubting Maddies was even there (or as some have theorized that she never existed at all) he would have been laugehd at as well as reviled by the British media.

This is not to say the concept of a "sub" is beyond credibility. I just think at this stage it's going to come across as rather a silly notion and especially at this time when we need, as a forum, to be gaining support I think newcomers are likely to think we're all idiots. Sorry, but to be blunt.

As to help from the elite - well I don't see where the doubt is. They have a stranglehold over the media, noone is allowed to question them and now they have a review by SY which is designed to support them and is serving them in helping the fund. Yes, the fund you would think they shouldn't need any more now that SY are on the case...

russiandoll wrote: quote Tigger

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.

I have made this point before, creche attendance is not obligatory, Maddie could easily have not attended some days with a simple explanation her parents had other plans. Am I missing something here with the attendance? The sheets look to have been tampered with, but I can't understand why a sub would have been needed to prove a girl called Maddie McCann was alive and well and at OC on a certain date..she did not have to attend creche.
Stella a while back made a point of asking why she went late one morning..this was not a school, but a holiday play club for the benefit of families to use as and when they wished, wasn't it?

But that's the problem - according to the creche sheets she was there even when she was not (Dr. Roberts 'as if by magic'). So if she is in two places at once one day - according to Kate and the creche sheets - that is one occasion when they are compromised. Where there is one day of lax supervision, there may be more.

Yes, RD, I would love to find a way in which the creche sheets were fiddled without too much trouble. Only a few nannies were involved and the fact that two of them kept in touch with the McCanns - one of them visiting in November 2007 near the key date of the Rothley meeting - makes one wonder.
I think that's the one who then moved to New York to be a nanny for a rich family. Can't remember if it was Pennington or Baker, but the mcCanns also arranged accommodation at an undisclosed location or words to that effect. It almost looks as if she was 'managed'.

I just wonder if a friend of yours had two children and you wandered along with him to the creche, signing one of the children in. No one would notice.
I'll have to look at the creche records again.

Are there any parents on here who would be happy to lend their child to friends / aquaintances for the purpose suggested in "the sub theory"?
Whilst a reasonable parent may allow their child to accompany friends on a foreign holiday, if something earth-shattering and internationally publicised happened during that holiday would you be able to keep schtum? What would those people need to have on you to keep you quiet? What would it take to buy your silence?

I do not buy or have ever bought into the "sub theory". However I do not dismiss the possibility of some subtifuge being employed to confuse the creche sheets........

Am I right in thinking that the girl in question appeared in a newspaper article with her mother sometime after the event? Surely parading The Sub before the world would be ridiculous?

tigger wrote:

russiandoll wrote: quote Tigger

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.

I have made this point before, creche attendance is not obligatory, Maddie could easily have not attended some days with a simple explanation her parents had other plans. Am I missing something here with the attendance? The sheets look to have been tampered with, but I can't understand why a sub would have been needed to prove a girl called Maddie McCann was alive and well and at OC on a certain date..she did not have to attend creche.
Stella a while back made a point of asking why she went late one morning..this was not a school, but a holiday play club for the benefit of families to use as and when they wished, wasn't it?

But that's the problem - according to the creche sheets she was there even when she was not (Dr. Roberts 'as if by magic'). So if she is in two places at once one day - according to Kate and the creche sheets - that is one occasion when they are compromised. Where there is one day of lax supervision, there may be more.

Yes, RD, I would love to find a way in which the creche sheets were fiddled without too much trouble. Only a few nannies were involved and the fact that two of them kept in touch with the McCanns - one of them visiting in November 2007 near the key date of the Rothley meeting - makes one wonder.
I think that's the one who then moved to New York to be a nanny for a rich family. Can't remember if it was Pennington or Baker, but the mcCanns also arranged accommodation at an undisclosed location or words to that effect. It almost looks as if she was 'managed'.

I just wonder if a friend of yours had two children and you wandered along with him to the creche, signing one of the children in. No one would notice.
I'll have to look at the creche records again.

I think this is what you mean tigger, I have never read the bit in bold in your post before, have you got a link for that, this is what I remember.........

Mark Warner did not return Ms Baker to Portugal from Greece and she has since left the company. She is now a live-in nanny looking after three children. Her location is being withheld on the request of the McCanns.

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

Sorry if I have muddied the waters even more, Tigger set me off [ blame Tigger !] with the difficult idea of an absent Maddie but no sub...
while the sub idea is interesting I remain very conflicted about it, mainly due to the involvement of others, so risky, and the complexity when I lean towards a simple event clouded by murk and lies after the event.
I also need to look again at creche sheets and re read about the creche because it appears sometimes well organised and with nannies interacting one on one and getting to know the children in their care, then it comes over as a free for all . sloppy record keeping re- attendance and I just thought, the only way an absent Maddie and no sub would work is if Maddie was stated to be doing something else that day or half day, nannies told well in advance, not the same day... [ no longer alive the real reason absent]... and at a busy drop off Maddie's name was signed in anyway, it was no more than a name on a sheet.
Very risky, but if the creche was mad busy and they knew things were sloppy.........could they, would they have risked this?

Baker certainly went to work in America and is still there as far as I know.

nomendelta wrote:It's one thing to take the notion of a missing girl, link it to dogs tracing blood and cadaverine in the apartment she went missing from and conclude that, in all probability she died there.

We then have to mix into this how and why the tapas group would comply in covering up, why the British elite would help and so on. It's actually quite a stretch of belief to even come up with one simple thread that ties all the loose ends together. To then extend that to suggesting duplicates, Maddie was never on holiday, the photos are Maddie but Maddie is hidden or teh photos aren't Maddie but she's still hidden - to me adding in all those extra layers of complication do not help build credible theories.

Who said Maddie was never there other than you implying such? How do you know what helps build credible theories and lines of investigation in a major enquiry? Do you have experience in a single one of such things or many varied multiples of such? Have you investigated as a matter of course, murders, serial murderers, rapists, serial rapists, serial armed robbers, and varied major underworld figures? Can you claim to have been instrumental, absolutely instrumental, in solving not just one but all of these different types of crime? More than once in every category? Do you know the living breathing reality of such things? Do you know how many tracks such an investigation can follow and how it is the human that ultimately solves such a thing? No you have not. I know for a fact you would not express yourself in such a fashion if you had. Sheeeesh.

Candyfloss wrote: quoting from DM:
think this is what you mean tigger, I have never read the bit in bold in your post before, have you got a link for that, this is what I remember.........

Mark Warner did not return Ms Baker to Portugal from Greece and she has since left the company. She is now a live-in nanny looking after three children. Her location is being withheld on the request of the McCanns. unquote.

I'll have a look, she might be in New York - I'll do a trawl. I can't immediately remember where I saw it.

I agree with Russiandoll, I'd love to find a way to get Maddie listed without actually delivering a child. Aren't some of Gerry's signatures rather squeezed in?
I certainly don't think they were rigorous with the administration.

Another thing that argues against Maddie attending creche: where are the items she created? I've seen a list of the activities for the week once, it included making sculptures, drawings etc. We have none and I would have thought that these would be treasured and if not treasured - used for tearful publicity.
Maddie's last drawing.... photographs of the sad couple holding.... No, all they had was their own prop, Cuddlecat.