McCanns Lawyer says police must take position on the lead provided by S.A Businessman

meg wrote:If it all happened before the 3rd the as a poster above has stated GA must be
giving them a way out by saying the 3rd for accidental death

Also in the first few days they made a few errors before the protection machine
really got going so therefore did they have a plan a that didn't work and resorted
to plan b which left them winging it a bit?

To me there is a definite power struggle going on between government, NI, the mccanns and even robert murat
to a lesser degree

Whoever is being shielded is higher than government for 3 leaders to protect them

Check Gerry's Tunnel Vision thread.

meg - Whoever is being shielded is higher than government for 3 leaders to protect them.


Exactly. Higher than Government!

Someone else was out there, someone high up is being shielded hence the protection the Mccanns have had. Think about who has spoken out in support of the Mccanns! Why would they do that!

T4two wrote:

whatsupdoc wrote:I've followed kikoratton on twitter for quite some time.I believe he is ex-intelligence with a good knowledge of phone systems.

He has shown the creche records to have been forged. From what I have seen , I go along with that. I think , as he does, that Madeleine died on the Saturday night and Madelene was substituted straight away so the real Madeleine was never seen in the creche.

The pattern of the mobile calls seem to indicate this. A quiet day on the Monday, I think it was, when Madeleine may have been taken far away.

If this Madelene was substituted, how convienient was that? Or was it preplanned. So many questions.Was it Madelene Naylor or another name which cropped up?

I like to tackle one problem at a time and I am not good at juggling. This case has too many questions and too many people involved.

If that were the case, then Dr. Amaral could of course be 100% correct that the child purporting to be Madeleine McCann was last seen on the 3rd at 17:30 h. That means that Amaral's certainty in no way rules out a substitution.

Excellent points. And could explain why the more recent photo's weren't used right from the start. The nanny would have known immediately that that wasn't the 'Madeleine' she'd been taking care of all week.

Regarding the tunnel vision it fits apart from how would GM know?

I think quite a few people know the truth
but nobody has dared to break the silence which speaks volumes
- an innocent 3 year old has lost their life, there can only be 1 thing more important
than getting justice for a child and that is protection of your own family

I've just had a thought.

If there was a substitute for Madeleine all week, was it this Madelene that the Smiths saw Gerry carrying back to her parents on the Thursday night?

The pink blanket would still be in 5A.

whatsupdoc wrote:I've just had a thought.

If there was a substitute for Madeleine all week, was it this Madelene that the Smiths saw Gerry carrying back to her parents on the Thursday night?

The pink blanket would still be in 5A.

Yes, it could well have been another child. The pink blanket was on the bed in the police photos of 5a from that night, as far as I know. I had that put down as having been given back to Madeleine at some point afterwards. by Kate.

With regard to Dr Amaral. If you consider his book is based on what is actually in the files, it is therefore based on the statements received, up to that point in time in the investigation. Paynes visit is crucial to Madeleine being alive that evening. If Amaral may have thought she was not there, or was compiling facts to show the real Madeleine was not there, we do not know. It was unproven from his point of view and so will not be suggested as a theory by him (for obvious reasons) His book tells us where he was at with it all, up to his point of departure. So privately he may or may not rule that out, perhaps he never had a chance to piece it together with facts.

What stays at the back of my mind all of the time is that Madeleine was doing something else, somewhere else, during the early days of the holiday. She was not part of the regular routine of the group. Of course this is just speculation on my part, but it is a feeling that will not go away. Not least for all of the reasons given about a substitute, the creche etc. Also though, Kate and Gerry. Gerry's "no active part" comment about her disappearance stays with me. Why did he not say we had absolutely nothing at all to do with it. Kate's "they've taken her", another comment that is just out of place.

They seem to me to often stick to the same phrases, which they consider technically to be true, to avoid being caught out as liars. Playing no active part in something is not the same as not knowing what happened.

So on balance, I agree with the substitute theory, but if it is the case, I fear it is not for any reason such as an accident happening earlier in the week, but something more sinister than that, which had Madeleine elsewhere, on a regular basis, for reasons known to quite a few others, and when something went wrong those other people we ready, willing and able to put the substitute plan into place.

A substitute Madeleine just seems a step too far for me. Is the person with this theory saying that it was the substitute who fell up the steps on the plane, or was that another holiday completely? Why would any other parent allow their child to be used in this way? I know there's nothing straightforward about the whole thing so the lack of recent photographs could be a point in favour of a substitute but it just makes it way too complicated for me to comprehend.

dazedandconfused wrote:A substitute Madeleine just seems a step too far for me. Is the person with this theory saying that it was the substitute who fell up the steps on the plane, or was that another holiday completely? Why would any other parent allow their child to be used in this way? I know there's nothing straightforward about the whole thing so the lack of recent photographs could be a point in favour of a substitute but it just makes it way too complicated for me to comprehend.

Morning dazed and confused......I can't accept this theory either . Are we to believe all the Tapas group were involved in this conspiracy? Deny
Amaral's confirmation that Madeleine was last seen at 5.30pm on 3rd May? That Gerry would report his visit to check on the children at 9pm and gush
about how beautiful she was? That David Payne would report seeing the three children all in their pyjamas at 6.30pm on the 3rd May.? That the OC Staff would not notice a switch if a new Madeleine was introduced...they saw Madeleine more than the Parents all that week. I don't even understand
why this theory is being discussed, does it explain anything?

Morning all..I don't think the creche staff ever saw Madeleine. I think they saw Madelene from the Sunday. I think it was Madelene that was seen on the 3rd @ 1730.I think GA knows this and gave the McCanns an easier way out saying it was accidental, being the gentleman that he is.

I don't know how much the Tapas group knew but I do know their answers to interviews were muddled...for doctors, a disgrace.

Gerry drew the triangles on his board re the Wider Agenda and got the help of all his Masonic Brothers...no question about that. Without their help, they would have been in jail in no time.

To anyone who thinks all conspiracy theories are a joke, I can mention some that certainly weren't a joke. Your choice not to believe real scientific proof. NASA has had to change it's story because of one detail I noticed. They also edited their videos to cover it up. No wonder the US wants to get hold of McKinnon but that is slightly different to my observation.

How long will the McCanns have the top knobs over a barrel? How long will masons keep supporting behaviour like this?

Unfortunately, a lot of people are in for a very nasty shock.

Morning everyone, and what a gorgous one it is....for now.

I agree with Panda, this theory doesn't work for me either, and that Maddy was last seen at 5.30am on 3rd May......that she was kept for 3weeks or so, and def not buried the same night as Birch says (even tho Birch says that he agrees with Amaral on this ) on 3rd May.

wotsupdoc, your right and its not going to be long imo, hense all this hype at the mo with Kates new job and all.

as i have said before i think put a sun hat shades on a little girl dress in pink and anyone can pass as madeline --- also height wise a child thats picked up --- held can you judge how tall that child is at a quick glance --- example theres 2 girls i know nearly 2 years apart age wise i have said hello bla bla wrong girl the sisters look alike --- it can be done ---- as for murrat something happened within him friends and his family --- he knows something --- always thought that

I just can't understand the reasoning for a substitute Madeleine......would someone please give me a reason for such a substitution. The creche staff
were with Madeleine every day from 9am til 12.30pm then 2 til 5.30 pm for 5 days so certainly would have noted a substitute.

Panda wrote:

I just can't understand the reasoning for a substitute Madeleine......would someone please give me a reason for such a substitution. The creche staff
were with Madeleine every day from 9am til 12.30pm then 2 til 5.30 pm for 5 days so certainly would have noted a substitute.

Can't think of one!

Panda wrote:

I just can't understand the reasoning for a substitute Madeleine......would someone please give me a reason for such a substitution. The creche staff
were with Madeleine every day from 9am til 12.30pm then 2 til 5.30 pm for 5 days so certainly would have noted a substitute.

Not if they never saw the real Madeleine , Panda. Hope u enjoyed your hol...was it nice and warm? It's been welly weather here...all this rain and the grass shoots up...might get it cut today. The excitement of it all...lol.

Angelina wrote:

Panda wrote:

I just can't understand the reasoning for a substitute Madeleine......would someone please give me a reason for such a substitution. The creche staff
were with Madeleine every day from 9am til 12.30pm then 2 til 5.30 pm for 5 days so certainly would have noted a substitute.

Can't think of one!

I can't either...lots of pieces missing...but I think there was a substitution. Just look at the pathetic attempt at forging entries in the creche register.

It's all a HUGE mystery.

whatsupdoc wrote:

Angelina wrote:

Panda wrote:

I just can't understand the reasoning for a substitute Madeleine......would someone please give me a reason for such a substitution. The creche staff
were with Madeleine every day from 9am til 12.30pm then 2 til 5.30 pm for 5 days so certainly would have noted a substitute.

Can't think of one!

I can't either...lots of pieces missing...but I think there was a substitution. Just look at the pathetic attempt at forging entries in the creche register.

It's all a HUGE mystery.

Problems I have with substitution:

Who did they substitute.

Where did she come from.

How did they manage to get a 3 year old to accept she had to use another name and, more difficult still, how did a 3 year old remember she had to use that name at all times. In the excitement and general play she would undoubtedly have forgotten.

It seems to me substitution would mean pre-planning which I find difficult to believe. There must be easier ways of committing such a crime than doing it in a foreign country and phoning the press about it.

There is so much confusion as to what Madeleine really looked like, thanks to mainly old photos sprinkled with a few dodgy ones supposedly taken on the holiday. So I can believe that another child might have been passed off successfully as being her.

However, if something did befall her earlier in the week - and it could of course have been an accident - why then did the McCanns not come up with the same old spiel that they did in fact use on 3rd May and thereafter? It is hard to think of a reason why they needed the world to think that 3rd May specifically was the day she disappeared.

If there was a substitution it must have been made before the first creche session, otherwise the risk would have been too great that the staff and the tapas who hadn't known Madeleine before the holiday would have have noticed. Indeed if made at all it would probably have been made before the holiday started. I have no opinion one way or the other; it would certainly explain a lot of anomalies but it also raises a lot of questions - the biggest one of course being the dogs' reactions. There was a cadaver in apartment 5a and in the hire car at some stage - of that IMO there can be no doubt.

The substitute's name was Madelene so no prob with names in the creche.

How come she was readily available? It seems Madeleine might have been terminally ill and all this arranged....no idea to be honest. Gerry wasn't there to enjoy himself but did find the time to play tennis and jog.

If this weather changes , I'm going to need an aqualung to cut the grass...

The person that is substituted doesn't have to actually be there, do they.

Write the name on the creche record and walk away, that's it.


The nannies weren't too bright were they.

Did the nannies check the signing in pad?


Did they check to see if each name coincided with the children that were there?


Did they do a 'head check' every time the children were signed in and signed out?


Why were the children allowed to be taken out off the creche by NON parents ?


It would never be allowed in the UK for non custodial parents to pick up children unless it is put in writing, not even a grandparent is allowed to take a child off school premises if they 'just turn up'.


Slack ...very slack child care in my opinion.


Kate McCann said she was never known as McCann before she went missing yet her name was used to sign Madeleine out...

T4two wrote:If there was a substitution it must have been made before the first creche session, otherwise the risk would have been too great that the staff and the tapas who hadn't known Madeleine before the holiday would have have noticed. Indeed if made at all it would probably have been made before the holiday started. I have no opinion one way or the other; it would certainly explain a lot of anomalies but it also raises a lot of questions - the biggest one of course being the dogs' reactions. There was a cadaver in apartment 5a and in the hire car at some stage - of that IMO there can be no doubt.

Exactly, so it's back to square one. Whether it was Madeleine or a substitute the questions remain. Why, who, how, who helped etc. Talk about round in circles.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:There is so much confusion as to what Madeleine really looked like, thanks to mainly old photos sprinkled with a few dodgy ones supposedly taken on the holiday. So I can believe that another child might have been passed off successfully as being her.

However, if something did befall her earlier in the week - and it could of course have been an accident - why then did the McCanns not come up with the same old spiel that they did in fact use on 3rd May and thereafter? It is hard to think of a reason why they needed the world to think that 3rd May specifically was the day she disappeared.

Except that whatever happened it was on 3rd May, as GA says.

whatsupdoc wrote:The substitute's name was Madelene so no prob with names in the creche.

How come she was readily available? It seems Madeleine might have been terminally ill and all this arranged....no idea to be honest. Gerry wasn't there to enjoy himself but did find the time to play tennis and jog.

If this weather changes , I'm going to need an aqualung to cut the grass...

I'm not being rude here but managing to find a substitute with the same name, sounds a bit convenient.

Why would they need a substitute because Madeleine was very ill. Why all the theatre. Unfortunately, children die from horrible illnesses all the time.

I agree, the childcare sounds rubbish but possibly "normal" for some of these holiday creches.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean about the substitute not actually having to be there. If so, why do you need a substitute at all.

Sorry if I'm being a bit thick...think my brain is waterlogged from all the rain.

kitti wrote:The person that is substituted doesn't have to actually be there, do they.

Write the name on the creche record and walk away, that's it.


The nannies weren't too bright were they.

Did the nannies check the signing in pad?


Did they check to see if each name coincided with the children that were there?


Did they do a 'head check' every time the children were signed in and signed out?


Why were the children allowed to be taken out off the creche by NON parents ?


It would never be allowed in the UK for non custodial parents to pick up children unless it is put in writing, not even a grandparent is allowed to take a child off school premises if they 'just turn up'.


Slack ...very slack child care in my opinion.


Kate McCann said she was never known as McCann before she went missing yet her name was used to sign Madeleine out...

If what happened happened before may 3rd the reason they didn't do what they did on that date is because they needed to get things straight in there head.


The reason they used may 3rd....she was hidden, unfindable and they were safe.



Why did they decide on may 3rd.....circumstances, the time was right.