Substitute child?

Portia please stop suggesting cloning and the boys from Brazil. This has nothing to do with cloning. It is not my opinion so please don't derail this thread with wild fantasy. The truth is usually simple.

Hideho! Thanks, you are a genius getting so much together.

The central figure in this is Maddie and only the real Maddie.

Beauty is very much prized by narcistic people, how would two such people feel if they had an obviously imperfect child?

I'll post about this later today, but imo the reason they do not feel guilty is to do with Maddie's condition. It's clear from the book - unintentionally - that right from the start she was a disappointment and not only because she cried so much and didn't sleep.
Otherwise, why would both Kate and Gerry and Maddie sit in the kitchen crying? It's in the bewk. Doctors who would have pediatricians to help them diagnose their child.

The problems I have with a substitute called Madaline/Madaleine are:
- where were her own parents? Did she go on holiday with the Naylors without them?
- why should she be willing to be taken and collected by Gerry and/or Kate?

My personal opinion is that the Ocean Club's records and quality of supervision where not as good as they would like everyone to believe, so can't be 100% relied upon.

HiDeHo wrote:I am not of the believe that Madeleine was substituted but I do feel there is a possibility that she was mistaken for another child...

Thank you HiDeHo for posting so much information and pointing me in the direction of forum2.

I agree with you Miraflores wrt the validity of a substitute.

With respect tigger, at this point I personally would prefer to study all the evidence available for and against the hypothesis of there being a substitute without getting involved in the discussion on Madeleine's character or appearance because I have a lot to catch up on the rest of you

Ribisi - I wonder whether you might find it useful to read the original creche thread which looks at the issue of substitution in the context of the creche records? That might help to provide you with some of the background rather than having to reiterate it here.

I do understand why people want to separate out issues but in my view a number of points are interlinked which means that discussing one issue in isolation does not help to understand the bigger picture. And inevitably discussion then goes into other areas.

I remembered overnight the correspondence that Tony B had with Philip Edmonds, a guest at the OC with his three sons . He says he has pictures taken of Madeleine with sons on 3 May. So that means that either Madeleine was still around on 3 May or the pictures are of a child whom everyone assumed was Madeleine.

Many of the nannies`s statements contain information about there being a child in the creche who answered to Maddie. I am not sure that we can say that they are all mistaken or being " economical" with the truth. It is not impossible of course that the creche sign in procedure was so haphazard that it allowed for children to be signed in and out without nannies knowing what was going on. So mistaken identity is an alternative to substitution.

Jean wrote:I can appreciate that any suggestion of there being another child passed off for Madeleine will have the pros cackling with glee over their cauldrons.

However, the evidence does suggest that she was no longer around prior to 3rd May and, as a child was still being signed in to the creche, I can't at the moment think of any other alternative.

Thats how I feel too Jean. I believe something happened to Madeleine at the beginning of the holiday so who was attending the creche as 'Madeleine' that week? However outlandish this may seem to some, I don't think the idea of a substitute can be ruled out simply because some people think its a step too far. I think this is an avenue worth exploring and I for one am not ruling it out.

it feels like maybe we cant trusy any of the writen altered files about anything ,just seems to give us so much to ponder,over and ove ig=t goes ,like gerry said its good to have confusion,or words to that effect joyce1938

Juliette wrote:

Jean wrote:I can appreciate that any suggestion of there being another child passed off for Madeleine will have the pros cackling with glee over their cauldrons.

However, the evidence does suggest that she was no longer around prior to 3rd May and, as a child was still being signed in to the creche, I can't at the moment think of any other alternative.

Thats how I feel too Jean. I believe something happened to Madeleine at the beginning of the holiday so who was attending the creche as 'Madeleine' that week? However outlandish this may seem to some, I don't think the idea of a substitute can be ruled out simply because some people think its a step too far. I think this is an avenue worth exploring and I for one am not ruling it out.

I agree!
I think the mindset 'It couldn't possibly happen' is a very dangerous one... So many people have said 'Oh, no way could the McCanns have done anything to Maddie - she was their daughter - they are Doctors' blah blah blah - just because one can't envisage something happening doesn't mean it doesn't! The statistics themselves are very clear- 99% of children said to be abducted from the home are actually killed by a family member. I, personally, cannot understand how ANYONE could kill their child but they do. Despite being explained to me repeatedly, I just don't understand how aeroplanes stay up in the sky but they do!
It may seem outlandish, a substitute, but somebody was signed in at the creche every day - if something happened to Maddie earlier in the week, and evidence certainly points that way - then a sub seems the only explanation.
The only other explanation I could think of is signing in but no child being dropped off. This idea doesn't fly though, because 1)I'm sure the creche did head counts and 2)it doesn't explain a child answering to 'Maddie'...

2)it doesn't explain a child answering to 'Maddie'...

Or not answering to Maddie - because we are repeatedly told by Kate that she only answered to 'Madlun'. This is despite all the posters having Maddie on them, the twins referring to Maddie etc..

Miraflores wrote:

2)it doesn't explain a child answering to 'Maddie'...

Or not answering to Maddie - because we are repeatedly told by Kate that she only answered to 'Madlun'. This is despite all the posters having Maddie on them, the twins referring to Maddie etc..

Yep indeed. Sorry Miraflores, my mistake - I really should be less lackadaisical and in this instance I should've written 'Madeleine'.
This, actually is IMO probably the most convincing argument for a sub.
We already know that when Team McCann mention a small issue but make a big thing of it, its for a reason. WHY would Kate bother to mention her daughter 'indignantly' stating 'I'm not Maddie. My name is Madeleine' and the proceed to tell us (lie to us) that they themselves NEVER called her 'Maddie'. This is demonstrably false. The twins certainly called her that, Gerry's blog or facebook page called her Maddie. Kate wants us to believe that it was the 'newspapers invention'. Bull! Why would they? They didn't rename Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman ' Hols and Jessy' nor did they call Sarah Payne 'Saz' or 'Sar' - in the case of a missing, likely dead child as a mark of respect they would refer to the child as the parents did, I'm certain of that.
So why the big kerfuffle over 'Maddie'? It is obviously to cover the fact that 'Maddie' had a flip out stating 'My name is not Maddie its Madeleine' - conceivable that the sub WAS only referred to as Madeleine - did a creche worker call her 'Maddie' - or did one of the T9 adults slip up and do so, prompting the outburst?
Either way, the McCanns so blatantly lying over what they called their daughter indicates to me there is a very important reason for them making this so clear... Why???
I just come back to 1)they called their daughter 'Maddie' 2)they have said this to explain why their daughter publicly said 'My name is not Maddie'
Hope this makes some sense, I'm thinking out loud really...

Digressing slightly: I believe the press did turn James Bulger into 'Jamie Bulger' despite the fact that his mother said he was always called James, so it can be said that the press invents diminutives when it suits them. In the McCann's case though - the family are on record calling Madeleine Maddie, so the blame for that can't be laid at the door of the press.

Kate in her book says that she was always Kate Healey, and yet she signs the creche sheets as Kate McCann. So if she isn't clear about how she herself was known how much reliability can be placed on her statement that Madeleine was never called Maddie?

It's very easy to make a blanket statement about the expectations of Madeleine's attendance in the creche according to files and witness statements made after the fact.

However, when one looks at the 'reality' of what may have happened, the circumstances may be very different to what we have been led to believe.

I had the illusion that each 'club' was segregated and each nanny had tight control over the children, similar to that of what we expect from a schooll. Seems I was wrong.

The creche at the reception appears to be one big room that is used by both Lobsters and Sharks, babies club and older children.

I imagined a signing in process that would be used for the security of the children present. As each child arrived, the parents would be greeted by the assigned nanny and the child taken to the group. The nanny would be aware of which children were in her presence at any particular time.

It seems these records may have been primarily used as a means of communication to contact the parents if necessarily.

Unlike a regular kindergaten/school, there were no arrival/departure times required and no 'list' to check that all children were present.

The children arrived and left sporadically and, according to the activity sheet, were not always at the creche building at the times the children arrived so what happened to the children if they arrived when the rest of the group were down at the beach for example? Did they sign the creche sheet and the children went into the creche to join the other group?

Were they refused and could only join the group at the location of the activity where the nanny held the sign in sheet?

How often did the nannies check the creche sheet against the children they were watching?

Did they meet and greet the parents or were the children dropped off and they entered the room on their own as the parents watched?

All of this would, in my opinion, allow for creche sheets that meant very little...not updated under the watchful eye of each nanny and probably not checked against the children's attendance that day, only used as a guide with possible children.

We don't know whether the children on the list attended the activities of that day or whether they were too late and stayed with other nannies.

Prior to this thread I have not thought of the possibility that the reason she was not known as 'Maddie' and would not answer to that name would explain how another child could be mistaken for her. A justification that when her name was used, that 'Madeleine' did not answer.

Not a 'direct' substitute but when ROB and Tanner's daughter was there, she could have been mistaken for Madeleine. (keeping in mind this was BEFORE the 'disappearance' with no reason to look for anything strange or contrived.)

This was the first week or two that newly 'trained' nannies probably concentrated on their job of keeping the children occupied rather than the security of being aware at all times which children were present and which parents belonged to each child.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Miraflores wrote:

2)it doesn't explain a child answering to 'Maddie'...

Or not answering to Maddie - because we are repeatedly told by Kate that she only answered to 'Madlun'. This is despite all the posters having Maddie on them, the twins referring to Maddie etc..

Yep indeed. Sorry Miraflores, my mistake - I really should be less lackadaisical and in this instance I should've written 'Madeleine'.
This, actually is IMO probably the most convincing argument for a sub.
We already know that when Team McCann mention a small issue but make a big thing of it, its for a reason. WHY would Kate bother to mention her daughter 'indignantly' stating 'I'm not Maddie. My name is Madeleine' and the proceed to tell us (lie to us) that they themselves NEVER called her 'Maddie'. This is demonstrably false. The twins certainly called her that, Gerry's blog or facebook page called her Maddie. Kate wants us to believe that it was the 'newspapers invention'. Bull! Why would they? They didn't rename Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman ' Hols and Jessy' nor did they call Sarah Payne 'Saz' or 'Sar' - in the case of a missing, likely dead child as a mark of respect they would refer to the child as the parents did, I'm certain of that.
So why the big kerfuffle over 'Maddie'? It is obviously to cover the fact that 'Maddie' had a flip out stating 'My name is not Maddie its Madeleine' - conceivable that the sub WAS only referred to as Madeleine - did a creche worker call her 'Maddie' - or did one of the T9 adults slip up and do so, prompting the outburst?
Either way, the McCanns so blatantly lying over what they called their daughter indicates to me there is a very important reason for them making this so clear... Why???
I just come back to 1)they called their daughter 'Maddie' 2)they have said this to explain why their daughter publicly said 'My name is not Maddie'
Hope this makes some sense, I'm thinking out loud really...

From the witness statement of Charlotte Pennington:

"She adds that it was usual for Madeleine to be called “Maddy”, as this is how she [Madeleine] presented herself to the witness..."



.

This refers back to the video on page one where you should also stop the video at 1.33.

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

Since I have a bee in my bonnet about the shape of Maddie's head seen sideways - at .50 the photograph certainly looks like a certain deformity of the skull.
I'm not drawing conclusions but these are a few points:
Kate's remark 'Maddie and her fear of pain' - may refer to treatment or operations she may have had.
The condition may also have brought on behavioural problems, sleeplessness etc.
The bags under her eyes are not natural for a toddler.
The scaphocelaphy occurs in different degrees of severity, it would not be visible from the front.

All this argues for a substitute child from day one.

Maddie's health records were denied - certainly to the PJ, probably to LP but also to SY?
Also bear in mind the IVF - were the donors the same in both cases? I don't rate the DNA report since it was 'influenced' by a visit of GB. I would think G is the father of the twins since Sean was getting reddish hair.

Also think of Gerry's remark (see forensic linguistics) 'she is still very active'.

I have browsed through the creche records and they are truly fascinating, especially when you compare them with the MCs' telephone trail. Well done Stella

However I do not believe they constitute an entirely reliable source of information. As HiDeHo and others have pointed out, it appears overall control was pretty slack and set procedures, if they ever existed, were not vigorously followed by the staff. So it's quite possible that the children were coming and going without the staff actually checking and confirming who, when or how they were signed in or out. And under such circumstances I can easily imagine Madeleine and Madalene getting mixed up by some of the staff.

I am still trying to find out some evidence that gives ground to the supposition that something could have happened to Madeleine prior to 1st May when Mrs Fern heard her crying at night. To me the most plausible timeline so far is with Madeleine's death occurring some time between the 2nd and 3rd which would have given the MCs enough time to set the scene for her disappearance. This would also be consistent with the cadaver dogs' findings.

Rainbow-fairy, I wrote some time ago about the fact that Kate McCann made a point of saying that Amelie had been born with a "rosebud mouth". Yet pictures of Amelie show she has a drooping of the upper lip. It struck me as odd, a contradiction of reality. This is NOT, obviously, trying to criticise Amelie. Just wondering why Kate M would make such a point about her looks.

Here is a copy of a post by Peter Mac from the topic 'Kate obsessed with beautiful children?'


PeterMac on Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:42 pm

p 26 "Our daughter was perfect. A beautiful round head, no marks, and not at all squashed. Big, brown eyes and a lovely, compact little body. The most wonderful thing I had ever set eyes on. I loved her instantly."

p.37 He wasn’t the prettiest, God bless him: he was squashed from the birth and his head was lopsided. But I loved him regardless and I’m glad to say he’s a really handsome chap these days, just gorgeous. Amelie was beautiful from the start - petite with a little rosebud mouth.”

p 129 too infamous to quote here - but again the emphasis on the ‘perfect’ rather than normal.

p 52 Sean and Amelie had always been perfect sleepers

So some perfect children, but Katey is such a perfect mother that she is able to love the one who wasn't. And now he is perfect and gorgeous again, so that's all right then. This is part of the strange Disney world they inhabit. Nothing can just be normal.
In fact we know that Madeleine was not perfect at all. She had a possibly very serious eye condition, which may be a sign of other genetic abnormalities, she screamed with colic for the first four months of her life, she had difficulty sleeping and used to get out of bed and go into the parent's bedroom, hence the need for the 'star chart'.
And when the detectives asked Katey whether she had considered handing Madeleine to a relative to look after, this was not something they just invented. They knew the answer and were asking to see if Katey would tell the truth or lie. In fact she refused to answer.
unquote
_

What is interesting here is:

There was nothing wrong with her head - not at all squashed - why tell us that?
The coloboma would have been visible but isn't mentioned - just a short time later in the Piers Morgan interview it was 'deleted'.
Sean wasn't pretty but thank God he improved and is gorgeous now.
The twins are and always have been 'perfect sleepers' - except when you read the diary..

This topic is very relevant to the one here: well worth a read.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

rainbow-fairy wrote:This has been mentioned briefly before, and I remember the poster got in hot water (but I can't remember who it was) for insinuating it was an 'injury'. I don't think its an injury but its clear to see - Amelie. Has anyone else noticed this? To me, it seems she has a hare lip. Kate, with her 'beauty' obsession has not mentioned this in the bewk, has she? But its very obvious in that video and most pics?
I know she mentions that Sean was squashed when born but became prettier. I'm sure I haven't seen Amelie's lip mentioned but I'm certain its there...

rainbow-fairy,

Perhaps the child has been unfortunate to witness this look @ 00.01sec too often and just imitates what she is used to seeing:



Press pause @ 00.01 secs to see the lip that looks like it is being pulled up by a thread.

tigger wrote:Here is a copy of a post by Peter Mac from the topic 'Kate obsessed with beautiful children?'


PeterMac on Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:42 pm

p 26 "Our daughter was perfect. A beautiful round head, no marks, and not at all squashed. Big, brown eyes and a lovely, compact little body. The most wonderful thing I had ever set eyes on. I loved her instantly."

p.37 He wasn’t the prettiest, God bless him: he was squashed from the birth and his head was lopsided. But I loved him regardless and I’m glad to say he’s a really handsome chap these days, just gorgeous. Amelie was beautiful from the start - petite with a little rosebud mouth.”

p 129 too infamous to quote here - but again the emphasis on the ‘perfect’ rather than normal.

p 52 Sean and Amelie had always been perfect sleepers

So some perfect children, but Katey is such a perfect mother that she is able to love the one who wasn't. And now he is perfect and gorgeous again, so that's all right then. This is part of the strange Disney world they inhabit. Nothing can just be normal.
In fact we know that Madeleine was not perfect at all. She had a possibly very serious eye condition, which may be a sign of other genetic abnormalities, she screamed with colic for the first four months of her life, she had difficulty sleeping and used to get out of bed and go into the parent's bedroom, hence the need for the 'star chart'.
And when the detectives asked Katey whether she had considered handing Madeleine to a relative to look after, this was not something they just invented. They knew the answer and were asking to see if Katey would tell the truth or lie. In fact she refused to answer.
unquote
_

What is interesting here is:

There was nothing wrong with her head - not at all squashed - why tell us that?
The coloboma would have been visible but isn't mentioned - just a short time later in the Piers Morgan interview it was 'deleted'.
Sean wasn't pretty but thank God he improved and is gorgeous now.
The twins are and always have been 'perfect sleepers' - except when you read the diary..

This topic is very relevant to the one here: well worth a read.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Just an observation. To me, it seems Kate has no normal maternal feelings at all. Its like she listens to others and tries to appear 'normal' but she fails, everything she says is just 'off'.
Amelie - what she says is demonstrably false IF the photo's are actually them. Its plainly obvious that Amelie's mouth is far from 'rosebud' - it looks like a hare lip to me. WHY would Kate state something that is so easy to refute? IF Amelie was born with a 'perfect rosebud mouth' then she must've suffered some form of injury very early on...
As for Sean not being the prettiest 'but she loved him regardless' - hell, what does the woman want, a medal? Of course you love your child 'regardless'. I can say hand on heart that when my boys were born, they were perfect to me and still are - ten fingers and toes but I didn't regard them in terms of physical attractiveness?
I do wonder if, mentioning Maddies head was perfect and round but that Sean's was lopsided, is she projecting Maddie onto Sean? 'Telling the truth, yet not telling the truth?' She has form...

on the 'perfect' theme, something that has always surprised me, quite apart from the horror of it, the p.129 description as 'perfect little ********'.....................
well how do you KNOW they are? It's such a strange thing to express...and the word 'perfect' seems to me to be used to emphasise the horror of it. When to me the subject matter couldn't be more horrible anyway.

It would be interesting to continue Tigger's point , if something is presented as perfect, should we be asking 'why?'

tigger wrote:Here is a copy of a post by Peter Mac from the topic 'Kate obsessed with beautiful children?'


PeterMac on Fri Jul 29, 2011 5:42 pm

p 26 "Our daughter was perfect. A beautiful round head, no marks, and not at all squashed. Big, brown eyes and a lovely, compact little body. The most wonderful thing I had ever set eyes on. I loved her instantly."

p.37 He wasn’t the prettiest, God bless him: he was squashed from the birth and his head was lopsided. But I loved him regardless and I’m glad to say he’s a really handsome chap these days, just gorgeous. Amelie was beautiful from the start - petite with a little rosebud mouth.”

p 129 too infamous to quote here - but again the emphasis on the ‘perfect’ rather than normal.

p 52 Sean and Amelie had always been perfect sleepers

So some perfect children, but Katey is such a perfect mother that she is able to love the one who wasn't. And now he is perfect and gorgeous again, so that's all right then. This is part of the strange Disney world they inhabit. Nothing can just be normal.
In fact we know that Madeleine was not perfect at all. She had a possibly very serious eye condition, which may be a sign of other genetic abnormalities, she screamed with colic for the first four months of her life, she had difficulty sleeping and used to get out of bed and go into the parent's bedroom, hence the need for the 'star chart'.
And when the detectives asked Katey whether she had considered handing Madeleine to a relative to look after, this was not something they just invented. They knew the answer and were asking to see if Katey would tell the truth or lie. In fact she refused to answer.
unquote
_

What is interesting here is:

There was nothing wrong with her head - not at all squashed - why tell us that?
The coloboma would have been visible but isn't mentioned - just a short time later in the Piers Morgan interview it was 'deleted'.
Sean wasn't pretty but thank God he improved and is gorgeous now.
The twins are and always have been 'perfect sleepers' - except when you read the diary..

This topic is very relevant to the one here: well worth a read.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

P26: Big, brown eyes

tigger/Peter Mac,

Is KM describing the birth of her eldest daughter? I am of the understanding that if a baby is born with brown eyes they stay brown and that is the color their eyes will remain as they grow up. Yet the missing child is described as having this eye colour:

Eyes:
Blue

Private Signs:
Small mark on skin, brown, the twin of the left leg. Eyes: blue and green left eye, right eye green with brown spot on the iris


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


My first born (now adult) child was born with blue/green eyes which changed quickly to green then at around age 3 changed to brown and have remained brown. My second born (now adult) child was born with beautiful green/blue eyes which changed to a beautiful green/hazel colour and have remained that colour. My third born (now adult) child was born with brown eyes and they have remained brown. My fourth (now teenage child) was born with brown eyes and they have remained that colour.

Ribisl wrote:I have browsed through the creche records and they are truly fascinating, especially when you compare them with the MCs' telephone trail. Well done Stella [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

However I do not believe they constitute an entirely reliable source of information. As HiDeHo and others have pointed out, it appears overall control was pretty slack and set procedures, if they ever existed, were not vigorously followed by the staff. So it's quite possible that the children were coming and going without the staff actually checking and confirming who, when or how they were signed in or out. And under such circumstances I can easily imagine Madeleine and Madalene getting mixed up by some of the staff.

I am still trying to find out some evidence that gives ground to the supposition that something could have happened to Madeleine prior to 1st May when Mrs Fern heard her crying at night. To me the most plausible timeline so far is with Madeleine's death occurring some time between the 2nd and 3rd which would have given the MCs enough time to set the scene for her disappearance. This would also be consistent with the cadaver dogs' findings.

You assume that death was around the 2nd - 3rd;

Then who was the little girl in Philip Edmonds photo taken on the 3rd, who he claims was Madeleine? This is the nephew of Lady Margaret Hodge MP. A relative of the Oppenheimer family. Someone who would be very respected in court.

Who was the little girl that was signed out of creche at 5.30 on the 3rd, who also attended high tea with all the other children and their parents.

Goncalo Amaral was quite confident that Madeleine was still alive by then.

Yet we still have people talking of death before that time, but never explain how that is even possible.

Hi zodiac, I can't find it now, but we already discussed the topic of brown eyes. Apparently it is a typo, and Kate writes : big big eyes, and not big brown eyes. I don't have her book, but someone can surely verify it.

Stella wrote:

Ribisl wrote:I have browsed through the creche records and they are truly fascinating, especially when you compare them with the MCs' telephone trail. Well done Stella [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

However I do not believe they constitute an entirely reliable source of information. As HiDeHo and others have pointed out, it appears overall control was pretty slack and set procedures, if they ever existed, were not vigorously followed by the staff. So it's quite possible that the children were coming and going without the staff actually checking and confirming who, when or how they were signed in or out. And under such circumstances I can easily imagine Madeleine and Madalene getting mixed up by some of the staff.

I am still trying to find out some evidence that gives ground to the supposition that something could have happened to Madeleine prior to 1st May when Mrs Fern heard her crying at night. To me the most plausible timeline so far is with Madeleine's death occurring some time between the 2nd and 3rd which would have given the MCs enough time to set the scene for her disappearance. This would also be consistent with the cadaver dogs' findings.

You assume that death was around the 2nd - 3rd;

Then who was the little girl in Philip Edmonds photo taken on the 3rd, who he claims was Madeleine? This is the nephew of Lady Margaret Hodge MP. A relative of the Oppenheimer family. Someone who would be very respected in court.

Who was the little girl that was signed out of creche at 5.30 on the 3rd, who also attended high tea with all the other children and their parents.

Goncalo Amaral was quite confident that Madeleine was still alive by then.

Yet we still have people talking of death before that time, but never explain how that is even possible.

But has P. Edmonds ever produced his photo? And were there independent reliable witnesses who saw Madeleine at her last high tea? Not discounting the substitute child theory, just asking..

Juulcy wrote:Hi zodiac, I can't find it now, but we already discussed the topic of brown eyes. Apparently it is a typo, and Kate writes : big big eyes, and not big brown eyes. I don't have her book, but someone can surely verify it.

Juulcy,

Thanks. I forgot I had a copy of the book and have just checked. It does say:

Big, big eyes