The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.


Jill Havern
Forum owner

Tuesday.

Page 3 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by j.rob on 01.09.14 14:06

@HelenMeg wrote:I had never really thought about the docs - DP / MO / RO / GM in terms of their specialty regarding  medical skills. But RO was the one who was the Consultant in Acute Medicine - which would have been very very very helpful in assisting a child who was gravely ill / dying. Perhaps he would have been a very obvious choice if a child's life needed to be saved. In fact not just perhaps - almost certainly. So if anyone of those docs was called to assist M whilst she lay dying then it would probably have been him - if that situation occurred of course. IMO.

Yes, this is a very good point. Because if Madeleine had 'accidentally been bumped on the head' or 'been clobbered by someone' then there was one person in the group of doctors who was especially qualified to be able to assess the situation and know what action needed to be taken.

It is beyond extraordinary, imo, and extremely suspicious, that  the twins were not woken up (from what was practically a coma from the sounds of it) and taken to be checked out medically.

Given that according to the McCanns and their friends a (paedophile) abductor had gone into the room where all three children were sleeping, quite possibly on two consecutive nights, and had quite possibly drugged ALL THREE children. And had then stolen one of them - Madeleine.

Isn't it extraordinary that not one of these doctors (including one who was in Consultant in Acute Medicine) did not insist on proper medical examination of the twins?

I mean what other parents would get away with claiming that their daughter had been abducted by a probable paedophile and then not find their remaining two children being subjected to intense scrutiny?

Jane Tanner's very heavy investment in the 'random abductor' theory makes complete sense if you consider that she is covering up not so much for K or G but for her own partner.

Which does somewhat beg the very awkward question of whether Madeleine could have been 'saved' if she had received timely, appropriate medical care. Even if it was *just* a question of over-sedation. That would still require medical care. 

And given that I think I am right in saying there was a 24 hour medical centre just down the road from Ocean Club. Which, in actual fact, was the direction being taken by the man carrying a child as seen by the Smith family at 10pm. (Not suggesting that this man was necessarily heading there, but if the child he was carrying was in need of medical attention then that is where he SHOULD have been heading.)

Just suppose RO did try to help, but Madeleine needed to go to A+E. For some reason, or for several reasons, this was not something that TM did not want to happen. Or RO could have helped but, for whatever reason, did not want to get himself implicated in a very complex situation.

Just a few theories.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 228
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by j.rob on 01.09.14 14:21

This bit snipped from the Sun article linked up-thread pretty much gives the game away, im. Especially when you consider how Russell, Kate and Matt have spun the 'haunting conversation' incident (as recounted in Kate's book and in Matt and Russell's police statements) to suggest that the other holidaymaker felt awkward photographing his own child when in actual fact it was the TM filming of his daughter which made HIM feel awkward. To the extent that he went up and spoke to them. 


Can anyone explain why Kate McCann, Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner and Rachel Oldfield (and I think Matt also makes some disingenuous comment about the Nigel filming incident) feel under enormous pressure not to take photos of their own children?


Kate in her book makes an entirely bizarre comment about 'not being allowed to take photographs of your own kids in swimming pools any longer'.


Why???


What is it with TM and photographs of children?


Does this somehow account for the absence of photos of ANY of the TM children during that week at OC?


Not one single one that appears 'genuine'. 


Dr Russell O’Brien, one of the so-called Tapas Seven, told police of the “haunting” conversation had while on holiday in Portugal last year. He said it came up after another father said he felt awkward photographing his own child.
 
Dr O’Brien, 37, was with his partner Jane Tanner, 37, Rachel Oldfield, 37, and Kate, 40. He said: “We then had a conversation about the ludicrous pressure on parents that they can’t take photos of their children.
 
“The other aspect of the conversation, which is doubly haunting, was that we said, ‘You’re far more likely to get clobbered by your uncle or your neighbour than some random stranger’.
 
Since this happened ten or 11 hours before Madeleine was abducted, it seemed a very uncomfortable coincidence.” The doctor, of Exeter, Devon, made his comments in April as he was quizzed by British cops at the request of the Portuguese authorities.
 
 
Sniffer dogs found scent on one of McCanns friends.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 228
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by jeanmonroe on 01.09.14 15:31

'Kate in her book makes an entirely bizarre comment about 'not being allowed to take photographs of your own kids in swimming pools any longer'.
-------------------------------------------

Was that bizarre 'comment', made by KM, before, or after, she took a 'last' photograph, of two of her own kids, at a swimming pool? winkwink

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5172
Reputation : 921
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by canada12 on 01.09.14 17:55

@j.rob wrote:This bit snipped from the Sun article linked up-thread pretty much gives the game away, im. Especially when you consider how Russell, Kate and Matt have spun the 'haunting conversation' incident (as recounted in Kate's book and in Matt and Russell's police statements) to suggest that the other holidaymaker felt awkward photographing his own child when in actual fact it was the TM filming of his daughter which made HIM feel awkward. To the extent that he went up and spoke to them. 


Can anyone explain why Kate McCann, Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner and Rachel Oldfield (and I think Matt also makes some disingenuous comment about the Nigel filming incident) feel under enormous pressure not to take photos of their own children?


Kate in her book makes an entirely bizarre comment about 'not being allowed to take photographs of your own kids in swimming pools any longer'.


Why???


What is it with TM and photographs of children?


Does this somehow account for the absence of photos of ANY of the TM children during that week at OC?


Not one single one that appears 'genuine'. 


Dr Russell O’Brien, one of the so-called Tapas Seven, told police of the “haunting” conversation had while on holiday in Portugal last year. He said it came up after another father said he felt awkward photographing his own child.
 
Dr O’Brien, 37, was with his partner Jane Tanner, 37, Rachel Oldfield, 37, and Kate, 40. He said: “We then had a conversation about the ludicrous pressure on parents that they can’t take photos of their children.
 
“The other aspect of the conversation, which is doubly haunting, was that we said, ‘You’re far more likely to get clobbered by your uncle or your neighbour than some random stranger’.
 
Since this happened ten or 11 hours before Madeleine was abducted, it seemed a very uncomfortable coincidence.” The doctor, of Exeter, Devon, made his comments in April as he was quizzed by British cops at the request of the Portuguese authorities.
 
 
Sniffer dogs found scent on one of McCanns friends.

But there are other photos of the other children taken by Tapas friends. Look here:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm

Just, bizarrely, none taken by Kate or Gerry of their own kids, it seems.

canada12

Posts : 1461
Reputation : 194
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Hicks on 01.09.14 18:11

It could be that ROB was attending to Madeleine instead of his daughter. In his statement ROB says that on that night in question his daughter was vomiting so he had to change the sheets. The OC staff apparently claimed there were no requests for clean sheets that night. He certainly was absent from the table for a long time.

I still maintain that if a genuine accident had occurred surely the McCann's would have wanted immediate medical treatment for Madeleine?  There has to be a good reason why the death was covered up, and why the British government were, and perhaps still are, complicit.

____________________
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln.

Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 58

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by j.rob on 01.09.14 18:44

But there are other photos of the other children taken by Tapas friends. Look here:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/HOLIDAY-PHOTOS-LIST.htm

Just, bizarrely, none taken by Kate or Gerry of their own kids, it seems.


-------------------------------------
Strange how they are in black and white so you can't really identify anyone that well, as has been noted at the very top. 'A
lmost all of the B&W (non-grey scale) images do not readily permit identification of the individual.'


Very odd indeed, imo. I presume that was the idea.



The photographs of Madeleine at the playground and near the Wendy House.

Hmmm......as with most things relating to TM - they do not bear up well to scrutiny. In the full length photo of Madeleine wearing pink, the top half of her body does not really 'fit' with the bottom half. The angle of the upper body and the angle of the legs and in particular feet are not compatible. Plus, the lower body/legs look much too small for the upper body.

Of interest, perhaps, is that this photo was allegedly taken on Wednesday. Which might be significant if *something* happened on Tuesday or earlier in the week.



Also I think that this photo was not released until early June, is that right? Almost a month after Madeleine 'disappeared.'

On Saturday - the day of arrival - Kate writes in her book how she went swimming in the freezing pool with Madeleine. There are no photos of this. Which you might think odd.  But then, Kate's professed belief of 'not being allowed to take photographs of your own kids in swimming pools any longer,' might explain this omission.



But, if you are not allowed to take photographs of your own children, does that mean that it is okay to take photographs of other people's children? Nigel's little girl, for instance? Nigel didn't like - and told them it was making him feeling uncomfortable - it but in the topsy-turvy world of TM, silly old Nigel was simply falling pray to paranoia.


(This is all bizarrely reminiscent of the Polish couple reported as suspiciously photographing children in Sagres earlier in the week - I think Monday? Is there any link or connection between these incidents?)

This comment was apparently made by Kate on Thursday morning when Kate and Russell spoke to holiday-maker Nigel at the time of the curious video-recording incident. The general consensus being, according to Kate, that 'it was a shame things had come to this, especially for the children.'. With Russell 'effectively saying that the world had become paranoid'.

So, given that 'the last photo' of Madeleine sitting at the edge of the swimming pool was taken at Thursday lunchtime, this conversation occurred just an hour or so before 'the last photo'. 

With regard to the playground photo showing Gerry allegedly playing with Sean and Madeleine, again I think supposedly taken on Wednesday, it is most peculiar. There is no engagement whatsoever between Gerry, Sean and Madeleine. The only person apparently engaging with the photographer is Raj Balu (I think that is who this is?) There is a small dark haired child apparently looking up at Gerry or Balu almost in a 'what's going on?' way.



But there is nothing in that photo that suggests that Gerry is interacting with any of the children, or any of the children are interacting with each other or with him. 


If this is the best that TM could come up with to demonstrate their lovely family holiday, it really does make you wonder. 

I wonder who the couple walking away on the left are?




j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 228
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by PeterMac on 01.09.14 21:43

@canada12 wrote:
Just, bizarrely, none taken by Kate or Gerry of their own kids, it seems.

They didn''t hand that camera over.

Simple. If you look at the photo taken at 2am on the 4/5/7 the Canon is still on the table. The Olympus was the one handed over to make the poster photos,
and was also the one sent off to Hampshire (-Don't ask ! ! ) for analysis.
The Canon remained firmly in the hands of the McCanns.
She boasts about it in the book (Prosecution Exhibit KH 1)
It was the one which had the "Last Photo," which was then forged so that the EXIF data were changed to pretend that it had been taken on the Thursday lunch time
when in fact Thursday Lunchtime was wet and cold, not hot and sweaty.
Mitchell seems to have been involved in this deception, and may well have persuaded Gerry that it was a "good idea".

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 144
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by j.rob on 01.09.14 21:54

@PeterMac wrote:
@canada12 wrote:
Just, bizarrely, none taken by Kate or Gerry of their own kids, it seems.

They didn''t hand that camera over.

Simple.  If you look at the photo taken at 2am on the 4/5/7 the Canon is still on the table. The Olympus was the one handed over to make the poster photos,
and was also the one sent off to Hampshire (-Don't ask ! ! ) for analysis.  
The Canon remained firmly in the hands of the McCanns.
She boasts about it in the book (Prosecution Exhibit KH 1)
It was the one which had the "Last Photo," which was then forged so that the EXIF data were changed to pretend that it had been taken on the Thursday lunch time
when in fact Thursday Lunchtime was wet and cold, not hot and sweaty.
Mitchell seems to have been involved in this deception, and may well have persuaded Gerry that it was a "good idea".


But why make such a mess of it all? If Thursday lunchtime was wet and cold then it does not exactly take Inspector Clouseau to work out that there is something deceptive about the photo?

So, what is it all about? 

A little 'game'?

Or was Mitchell sent in to 'drop them in it?'

Oh dear, how some people get their kicks.......exhausting.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 228
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by palm tree on 01.09.14 22:33

Quick question, if Madeleine was on her own when Mrs Fenn heard the crying, surely she'd have called daddy for a bit but not getting any response, she'd have then called mummy?
If km was in the apartment and she's crying for daddy, what could be happening then?
If gm was in the apartment and she's crying daddy, what could be happening then also?
Just confused and trying to make sense of this ATM.

palm tree

Posts : 365
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-08-21

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by HelenMeg on 01.09.14 22:38

@Hicks wrote:It could be that ROB was attending to Madeleine instead of his daughter. In his statement ROB says that on that night in question his daughter was vomiting so he had to change the sheets. The OC staff apparently claimed there were no requests for clean sheets that night. He certainly was absent from the table for a long time.

I still maintain that if a genuine accident had occurred surely the McCann's would have wanted immediate medical treatment for Madeleine?  There has to be a good reason why the death was covered up, and why the British government were, and perhaps still are, complicit.
I think you've got it !
 
Some things start to make sense - if ROB attended M and not his own daughter. Too much of a coincidence if ROB's daughter was vomiting. ROB was probably trying to save the life of M but unable to. It accounts for his potential struggle to come to terms with things subsequently. It accounts for JT's motive to play such a huge role in cover up. JT and ROB are locked into this. It would be interesting to go over things & statements  again  from the perspective of ROB attending to M.  I dont have time tonight. Once ROB had intervened to try and save M, his loyal partner  JT was then destined to play a big role in the staged abduction and cover up.
Have they since split up as the rumours would suggest. I'm not surprised if so - the stress of their roles would be pretty unbearable.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 199
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by XTC on 01.09.14 23:34

If the accident was someone elses fault why would JT and ROB cover up at all?

If they were covering up that would mean that they knew the reason why Madeliene was ill and they were
 partly ( or solely ? ) responsible.

The same applies to all the others who's fault it wasn't. If you know what I mean?

Like austerity why does it appear that they are all in this together?

One point though is that it struck me a strange that the bed Madeleine was alleged to have been taken from is
very neat being as a child has slept in it. 

We do know one thing though, that is: ROB says he knew how to use the washing machine but Mrs McCann needed instructions

Does ROB speak Portuguese?

All opinion.

XTC

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by sar on 01.09.14 23:46

@HelenMeg wrote:
@Hicks wrote:It could be that ROB was attending to Madeleine instead of his daughter. In his statement ROB says that on that night in question his daughter was vomiting so he had to change the sheets. The OC staff apparently claimed there were no requests for clean sheets that night. He certainly was absent from the table for a long time.

I still maintain that if a genuine accident had occurred surely the McCann's would have wanted immediate medical treatment for Madeleine?  There has to be a good reason why the death was covered up, and why the British government were, and perhaps still are, complicit.
I think you've got it !
 
Some things start to make sense - if ROB attended M and not his own daughter. Too much of a coincidence if ROB's daughter was vomiting. ROB was probably trying to save the life of M but unable to. It accounts for his potential struggle to come to terms with things subsequently. It accounts for JT's motive to play such a huge role in cover up. JT and ROB are locked into this. It would be interesting to go over things & statements  again  from the perspective of ROB attending to M.  I dont have time tonight. Once ROB had intervened to try and save M, his loyal partner  JT was then destined to play a big role in the staged abduction and cover up.
Have they since split up as the rumours would suggest. I'm not surprised if so - the stress of their roles would be pretty unbearable.
Hicks and HelenMeg, some really interesting thinking.

sar

Posts : 467
Reputation : 141
Join date : 2013-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Okeydokey on 02.09.14 1:25

@sar wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:
@Hicks wrote:It could be that ROB was attending to Madeleine instead of his daughter. In his statement ROB says that on that night in question his daughter was vomiting so he had to change the sheets. The OC staff apparently claimed there were no requests for clean sheets that night. He certainly was absent from the table for a long time.

I still maintain that if a genuine accident had occurred surely the McCann's would have wanted immediate medical treatment for Madeleine?  There has to be a good reason why the death was covered up, and why the British government were, and perhaps still are, complicit.
I think you've got it !
 
Some things start to make sense - if ROB attended M and not his own daughter. Too much of a coincidence if ROB's daughter was vomiting. ROB was probably trying to save the life of M but unable to. It accounts for his potential struggle to come to terms with things subsequently. It accounts for JT's motive to play such a huge role in cover up. JT and ROB are locked into this. It would be interesting to go over things & statements  again  from the perspective of ROB attending to M.  I dont have time tonight. Once ROB had intervened to try and save M, his loyal partner  JT was then destined to play a big role in the staged abduction and cover up.
Have they since split up as the rumours would suggest. I'm not surprised if so - the stress of their roles would be pretty unbearable.
Hicks and HelenMeg, some really interesting thinking.

Yes, this certainly requires some more thought...especially in view of MO's unconvincing account of his visit to the apartment.

Another possibility to bear in mind is the "Tapas 9 divided by 2" i.e. those who know and those who don't know. That is another theoretical possibility which could explain some of the inconsistencies in behaviour.


Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by HelenMeg on 02.09.14 11:20

@Okeydokey wrote:
@sar wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:
@Hicks wrote:It could be that ROB was attending to Madeleine instead of his daughter. In his statement ROB says that on that night in question his daughter was vomiting so he had to change the sheets. The OC staff apparently claimed there were no requests for clean sheets that night. He certainly was absent from the table for a long time.

I still maintain that if a genuine accident had occurred surely the McCann's would have wanted immediate medical treatment for Madeleine?  There has to be a good reason why the death was covered up, and why the British government were, and perhaps still are, complicit.
I think you've got it !
 
Some things start to make sense - if ROB attended M and not his own daughter. Too much of a coincidence if ROB's daughter was vomiting. ROB was probably trying to save the life of M but unable to. It accounts for his potential struggle to come to terms with things subsequently. It accounts for JT's motive to play such a huge role in cover up. JT and ROB are locked into this. It would be interesting to go over things & statements  again  from the perspective of ROB attending to M.  I dont have time tonight. Once ROB had intervened to try and save M, his loyal partner  JT was then destined to play a big role in the staged abduction and cover up.
Have they since split up as the rumours would suggest. I'm not surprised if so - the stress of their roles would be pretty unbearable.
Hicks and HelenMeg, some really interesting thinking.

Yes, this certainly requires some more thought...especially in view of MO's unconvincing account of his visit to the apartment.

Another possibility to bear in mind is the "Tapas 9 divided by 2" i.e. those who know and those who don't know. That is another theoretical possibility which could explain some of the inconsistencies in behaviour.

I dont think RO would have had a choice about stepping in to help M. A doctors ethics mean that they cant just ignore a request for help. I also dont think that Gerry or Kate would have had a choice but to  ask for assistance if their daughter was so ill / injured. They would want to save her life at any cost, being her parents.  They had to ask RO if he could help her and he was clearly the best man for the job in terms of skill.
But none of that takes away from the fact that there had to be something going on that needed 'covering up' - something that all of the TAPAS 9 were implicated in. Otherwise they would have just called for an ambulance or taken he to hospital etc.  

It just means that when M was dying or injured etc RO probably assisted in trying to save her life. IMO.  It may help point to a time of death or incident.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 199
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Guest on 02.09.14 15:17

Not suggesting O'Brien is squeaky clean in every respect but I see a gaping hole in this theory.  Bearing in mind the Tanner/O'Brien child was allegedly sick on the night of Thursday, the same night as O'Brien may have been attending to MBM, how did this come about?

Hypothetically speaking, Gerry went to check on children to find Maddie was requiring immediate medical attention so what did he do next, rush back to the Tapas and whisper in the ears of Tanner/O'Brien to go to the rescue while he stayed at the restaurant table?  Sorry I don't buy it.  Or are you suggesting an accident happened prior to the Tapas meeting time, leaving Tanner/O'Brien to clean up the mess while the other two went to the Tapas? The Mccanns might be a bit dim in many respects but they are qualified doctors and should be able to attend to an emergency situation without calling for reinforcements.

If Maddie had what turned out to be a fatal accident then the obvious course would be to call an ambulance, doctors or not doctors.  If there was a specific reason why they couldn't do that then no point in calling for the assistance of O'Brien anyway.  There appears to be something much more sinister simmering under the surface, too many grey areas for my liking.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by HelenMeg on 02.09.14 18:06

Gollum wrote:Not suggesting O'Brien is squeaky clean in every respect but I see a gaping hole in this theory.  Bearing in mind the Tanner/O'Brien child was allegedly sick on the night of Thursday, the same night as O'Brien may have been attending to MBM, how did this come about?

Hypothetically speaking, Gerry went to check on children to find Maddie was requiring immediate medical attention so what did he do next, rush back to the Tapas and whisper in the ears of Tanner/O'Brien to go to the rescue while he stayed at the restaurant table?  Sorry I don't buy it.  Or are you suggesting an accident happened prior to the Tapas meeting time, leaving Tanner/O'Brien to clean up the mess while the other two went to the Tapas? The Mccanns might be a bit dim in many respects but they are qualified doctors and should be able to attend to an emergency situation without calling for reinforcements.

If Maddie had what turned out to be a fatal accident then the obvious course would be to call an ambulance, doctors or not doctors.  If there was a specific reason why they couldn't do that then no point in calling for the assistance of O'Brien anyway.  There appears to be something much more sinister simmering under the surface, too many grey areas for my liking.
I dont know when M died or needed help or was dying. I have always struggled to find a reason for JT to take a prominent role in the cover up e.g. lying about this that and the other. Also her fixation on not taking jeans /  Her taking part in the mocu etc etc .  I would have though she would want to distance herself from things - not play a role, a very public role.  If she was trying to protect RO then it makes sense.   It also makes sense that if M required medical attention - or there was a possibility of saving her life - then the person best skilled to help her in an acute medical situation would be RO - the other doctors were not as skilled as him in 'acute' medical situations.

It does not explain the whole cover up or why all the TAPAS 9 decided to take part in a cover up. That is explained probably by whatever activities they were taking part in that week that needed to be covered up. However, RO assisting M explains a few things for me.  The OBrien child being 'allegedly' sick seems rather a coincidence  - the fact that RO needed sheets - more likely that that was given as an excuse to cover up what was happening re M that night. IMO.
Anyway - feeling incredibly optimistic now after SKY / The TIMES reports....  thumbsup

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 199
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Hicks on 02.09.14 18:27

Have been at work all day so haven't had time to go over statements again.

However, I have been thinking about this subject on and off throughout the day.
There is a problem with the theory that ROB was tending to Madeleine instead of his own daughter. Would the McCann's really be sat at dinner knowing that ROB was trying to save the life of their daughter? I can't believe even they would be that callous.

Some other thoughts.....I suspect that it was ROB who wanted to tell all but was afraid to due the powerful ring around the McCann's. There were rumours that if was he who wanted to amend his statement, I think Mitchell called a meeting, and that was that.

ROB was not in the group photo outside on the court steps. Could it be that he wanted no part in the cover up? It could be the reason why he was not at the dinner.  Remember there was a witness who overheard two men arguing between 11.00pm to midnight( not 100% sure of the time, though def after 10.00pm) near the OC. I am sure I have read that one was overheard saying that they' didn't like lies'.

ROB had to keep quiet as his partner was complicit in the cover up, and basically, 'in it' up to her neck. It would be interesting to know if they have definitely split. That would add some weight to the theory.

I don't believe that ROB tended to his sick child. As we can't  really go by the tapas timeline, we don't know if ROB ever went to the tapas restaurant that evening. There is an OC witness statement claiming that JT never left the table that evening. I would tend to go along with that.  Time to go over their statement yet again!

____________________
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all the people all of the time. Abraham Lincoln.

Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 58

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by nglfi on 02.09.14 18:52

Something I've noticed is if you google 'baby listening service', you'll be astounded not only at the number of hotels that  offer this service,  but at the reasonably sizeable number of people who actually think this is acceptable.  I actually found a thread on mumsnet where people were discussing the benefits of it as if it was a normal thing to do. With that in mind, and the fact that MW itself offered this service at other resorts,  I think if there had simply been an accident there would be no need for a cover up. The parents could say we went one better than a baby listening service,  we the parents were doing it and regularly looking to check they were ok. I think they would have a defence of 'MW do it so it must be ok', and therefore they would have no hesitation in calling an ambulance if they found an accident.  Imo there has to be something more to it, a quite serious reason why thr body could not be found.  To me nothing else explains the lengths they went to to get rid of  her (sorry to be graphic).

nglfi

Posts : 337
Reputation : 52
Join date : 2014-01-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Newt Fink-Nottle on 02.09.14 18:56

All the T9 actions lead me to believe there was a cover-up. And the cover-up is of something more serious that neglect or over-sedation.

But, why would they cover something up and then setup a fund? Why draw more attention to yourself?

Newt Fink-Nottle

Posts : 9
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-06-06
Age : 47

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by cloak'ndagger on 02.09.14 19:40

@Newt Fink-Nottle wrote:All the T9 actions lead me to believe there was a cover-up. And the cover-up is of something more serious that neglect or over-sedation.

But, why would they cover something up and then setup a fund? Why draw more attention to yourself?
They needed the fund to finance their legal expenses. Uncle Brian Kennedy said it was a fighting fund. Innocent parents would not need to hire lawyers.

cloak'ndagger

Posts : 118
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-08-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by fred c dobbs on 02.09.14 21:12

@Newt Fink-Nottle wrote:All the T9 actions lead me to believe there was a cover-up. And the cover-up is of something more serious that neglect or over-sedation.

But, why would they cover something up and then setup a fund? Why draw more attention to yourself
They probably thought setting up a fund was the normal thing to do but then the money started rolling in and took over .Thirty pieces of silver comes to mind.They seem very confident no body will be found

fred c dobbs

Posts : 43
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2014-07-12
Age : 64

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by XTC on 02.09.14 22:01

@cloak'ndagger wrote:
@Newt Fink-Nottle wrote:All the T9 actions lead me to believe there was a cover-up. And the cover-up is of something more serious that neglect or over-sedation.

But, why would they cover something up and then setup a fund? Why draw more attention to yourself?
They needed the fund to finance their legal expenses. Uncle Brian Kennedy said it was a fighting fund. Innocent parents would not need to hire lawyers.
Fighting Fund is a strange phrase to use.

Fighting for/against what exactly?

Fighting for Madeleine is a better phrase surely?

I do think that this a a lot bigger than a missing child case because despite being doctors and so called loyalty etc, self interest holds sway
above that particular ideal.

Failing that self interest - group interest to save yourselves is the least worst option.

The big question is: What's the common  interest that binds them together?

All for one and one for all doesn't sit right with the Tapas 9.

Opinion only.

XTC

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by cloak'ndagger on 02.09.14 22:45

Here is the clip of Brian Kennedy speaking of the ''fighting fund'' and Granma Healy says Gerry was uplifted to hear the news. I bet he was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML-gTcKDKrM

I think the McCanns are pawns here. There are many theories as to why they have received so much protection. I often wonder if the the McCann children were the result of an unethical IVF experiment which had to be covered up. It would explain why the parents showed no apparent grief following Maddie's demise. They could possibly argue that she was born imperfect as a result of an experiment?

It sort of ticks lot of boxes for me but I know it is probably quite improbable.

cloak'ndagger

Posts : 118
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2014-08-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Okeydokey on 03.09.14 2:47

Gollum wrote:Not suggesting O'Brien is squeaky clean in every respect but I see a gaping hole in this theory.  Bearing in mind the Tanner/O'Brien child was allegedly sick on the night of Thursday, the same night as O'Brien may have been attending to MBM, how did this come about?

Hypothetically speaking, Gerry went to check on children to find Maddie was requiring immediate medical attention so what did he do next, rush back to the Tapas and whisper in the ears of Tanner/O'Brien to go to the rescue while he stayed at the restaurant table?  Sorry I don't buy it.  Or are you suggesting an accident happened prior to the Tapas meeting time, leaving Tanner/O'Brien to clean up the mess while the other two went to the Tapas? The Mccanns might be a bit dim in many respects but they are qualified doctors and should be able to attend to an emergency situation without calling for reinforcements.

If Maddie had what turned out to be a fatal accident then the obvious course would be to call an ambulance, doctors or not doctors.  If there was a specific reason why they couldn't do that then no point in calling for the assistance of O'Brien anyway.  There appears to be something much more sinister simmering under the surface, too many grey areas for my liking.

There could, theoretically, be any number of reasons why the McCanns would call on O'Brien. There is a very human impulse to involve others in one's own guilt - to spreadthe load - at the very least. But he may have been able to offer some medical expertise that they did not have.

You would only call for an ambulance etc if you were sure it wouldn't result in your public shame, your imprisonment, ostracism within your family, loss of other children, and deprivation of livelihood.

It is quite plausible from a theoretical point of view that the majority of Tapas 9 were motivated by such factors. Certainly the Tapas 9 testimony if you read it is not incompatible with such scenarios.

Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Guest on 03.09.14 8:29

@cloak'ndagger wrote:
I think the McCanns are pawns here. There are many theories as to why they have received so much protection. I often wonder if the the McCann children were the result of an unethical IVF experiment which had to be covered up. It would explain why the parents showed no apparent grief following Maddie's demise. They could possibly argue that she was born imperfect as a result of an experiment?

It sort of ticks lot of boxes for me but I know it is probably quite improbable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28986843

Alana Saarinen is one of only 30 to 50 people in the world who have some mitochondria, and therefore a bit of DNA, from a third person. She was conceived through a pioneering infertility treatment in the USA which was later banned.

Seventeen babies were born at Cohen's clinic, as a result of cytoplasmic transfer, who could have had DNA from three people.

But there was concern about some of the babies.

"There was one early miscarriage, considering there were twelve pregnancies that is an expected number," says Cohen.

He and his team believed that miscarriage occurred because the foetus was missing an X chromosome.

"Then there was another twin pregnancy, where one [of the twins] was considered entirely normal and the other had a missing X chromosome.

"So that's two out of the small group of foetuses that was obtained from this procedure. This did worry us and we reported that in the literature and in our ethical and review board that oversees these procedures," he says.

At the time of birth, the other babies were all fine. A year or two later, another of the children was found to have "early signs of pervasive early developmental disorder which is a range of cognitive diseases which also includes autism." Cohen told me.

My bolding.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 6 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum