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

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Girls only...

Post by missbeetle on 03.09.14 8:59

Thank you Clay for a fascinating article.

This bit (clipped from the article you linked) jumped out at me :

Seeing as there were supposed to be ten little girls present at the Ocean Club whilst the McCanns were there...

____________________
'Tis strange, but true; for truth is always strange...
(from Lord Byron's 'Don Juan', 1823)

missbeetle

Posts : 985
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-02-28
Location : New Zealand

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Guest on 03.09.14 9:26

@missbeetle wrote:Thank you Clay for a fascinating article.

This bit (clipped from the article you linked) jumped out at me :

Seeing as there were supposed to be ten little girls present at the Ocean Club whilst the McCanns were there...

Plus of course Murat's daughter, who wasn't.

I find the DNA stuff baffling, frankly. Funnily enough I was watching Michael Portillo's Train Journeys (Leicestershire) on BBC4 last night and they were explaining how Richard III's DNA could only be confirmed because there was an unbroken female bloodline all the way to the present day. Alarmingly, he then went on the spend the night at the Rothley Court Hotel....

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

All roads (and trains) lead to Rothley...

Post by missbeetle on 03.09.14 9:37

Michael Portillo, now there's a blast from the past.

The Rothley Court Hotel seems an integral part of this story - I was looking at their heraldic-print curtains the other day.

The DNA/genetics/family aspect of this case - phew! - I have wondered, however...

...if Kate was only ever the egg donor for Madeleine.

Perhaps she grew up with other birth parents entirely?

My ideas anyhow.

____________________
'Tis strange, but true; for truth is always strange...
(from Lord Byron's 'Don Juan', 1823)

missbeetle

Posts : 985
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-02-28
Location : New Zealand

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Snifferdog on 03.09.14 10:48

Very interesting posts missbeetle and Clay.

____________________
“‘Conspiracy stuff’ is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.”
– Gore Vidal

Snifferdog

Posts : 1008
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2012-05-11
Location : here

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by worriedmum on 03.09.14 11:19

@missbeetle wrote:Michael Portillo, now there's a blast from the past.

The Rothley Court Hotel seems an integral part of this story - I was looking at their heraldic-print curtains the other day.

The DNA/genetics/family aspect of this case - phew! - I have wondered, however...

...if Kate was only ever the egg donor for Madeleine.

Perhaps she grew up with other birth parents entirely?

My ideas anyhow.
Interesting ideas. the part I have bolded reminded me of this from the '48 questions'-


''41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?''

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041635/The-48-questions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html

worriedmum

Posts : 1646
Reputation : 260
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by inspirespirit on 03.09.14 11:48

@missbeetle wrote:Michael Portillo, now there's a blast from the past.

The Rothley Court Hotel seems an integral part of this story - I was looking at their heraldic-print curtains the other day.

The DNA/genetics/family aspect of this case - phew! - I have wondered, however...

...if Kate was only ever the egg donor for Madeleine.

Perhaps she grew up with other birth parents entirely?

My ideas anyhow.
Were you at Rothley Court Hotel the other day then Miss Beetle?

I definitely think Madeleine is Gerry's child.  She looks just like him and she has that dimple in her cheek that he has.

Also, she certainly looks well and healthy in her photos and videos.

inspirespirit

Posts : 179
Reputation : 31
Join date : 2014-06-26
Age : 63

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by SuspiciousMinds on 03.09.14 14:25

I've come to the conclusion that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one.

The children were left every night as claimed - hence crying on previous nights. On Thursday they are sedated to keep them quiet.

Madeleine's dose was not enough. She wakes up, climbs on the sofa still a little woozy, and falls down behind it, smashing her head on the stone floor.

Kate McCann returns to the flat to check on the children and cannot find Madeleine. She has a quick look in all the rooms and calls her name, but does not see her behind the sofa. Panic sets in. As far as she is concerned, Madeleine had been sedated and could not have woken up and gone off on her own. Therefore the only explanation is that someone has got in and taken her.

On the way back to the tapas bar, she has run through the scenario and visualised the kidnappers in her head so many times that when she finally reaches her husband she screams, "They've taken her!" as if he knows who she is talking about.

The McCanns and their friends dash back to the flat to search it. One of them finds Madeleine. She is cold and clearly dead - there is no hope of resuscitation. They are all shocked and scared. Gerry points out that they have all left their children alone, that it could have happened to any of them, and all their careers and livelihoods are in jeopardy. If anyone finds out what has happened, they will all suffer the consequences. In the shock of the moment, they are all inclined to agree. They feel desperately sorry for the McCanns and just want to help them.

Since Kate has already run screaming in public that Madeleine has been taken, an obvious solution presents itself and there is no time to delay to think up a better plan. They just need to get the body out of the apartment so that if and when it is found, the injuries can be blamed on a mythical abductor and it cannot be proved that anything happened in the flat.

Kate is starting to get hysterical, but Gerry grabs hold of her (hard enough to cause bruises) and tells her she has to calm down, clean up the evidence and fake the abduction scene while he hides the body. He takes the body outside, lays it down momentarily to pop down the steps and check that there is no-one around, and then hurries down towards the beach with it.

Meanwhile the Tapas friends are busy cleaning behind the sofa to get rid of the blood. Kate is still in a state of shock, and can't think beyond pushing open a window as a possible means of entry for an abductor.

Gerry encounters the Smiths. He realises that he needs to get back to the flat as soon as possible to protect his alibi. He dumps the body somewhere inconspicuous nearby (abandoned building?) and heads back. It is now time to alert the police, so Matthew Oldfield is immediately sent to ask the reception desk to call them.

Once the alarm has been raised, the friends sit around to build a timeline. As Gerry was seen at 10.00 p.m. with the body, they agree to say that Kate checked and raised the alarm at that time - in fact, it was earlier according to staff at the restaurant. Gerry was also seen at the apartment at 9.15 p.m. by Jez Wilkins, and therefore Jane Tanner is enlisted to say that she saw someone walking past with a child at that time to show both that the abduction took place much earlier than the Smith sighting and also that the suspect was definitely not Gerry. They also want to cover their own backs by showing they made regular checks on their children.

It is imperative that the idea of abduction is firmly rooted in everyone's minds from the first moment, hence the calls to UK and media about jemmied shutters and intruders. Any suggestion that Madeleine may have wandered off is instantly squashed; however, it is not possible to say why. Whipping up a media storm about the ineffectual Portuguese police will also stir patriotic outrage and sympathy for the McCanns in the UK and set the scene for claiming that they were being set up later on.

The initial search, in the dark, is unsuccessful and is set to resume the next day. At dawn, Kate and Gerry retrieve the body and carry it towards Lagos Marina. Their logic is that if the body is found a good distance from Praia da Luz, then they can justifiably claim that it could not possibly have been them who put it there. They are seen by George Burke.

People in the UK start donating money to find Madeleine. The McCanns realise that this will be invaluable for paying the best lawyers should they be arrested. They set up a company to co-ordinate a full-on campaign and start up their fighting fund. They do everything to raise awareness and money, including enlisting the help of major politicians, huge celebrities and even the Pope.

Over the course of the next couple of weeks, the McCanns and their friends dig themselves deeper and deeper into the hole they have dug for themselves. They desperately change their stories to try to match each other, and to plug unforeseen holes pointed out in the media. Jane Tanner's descriptions get more and more vivid, David Payne and Kate McCann suddenly remember that he popped by and saw Madeleine alive and well at 6.30 p.m., Gerry realises that Kate's attempt at staging an abduction was a shambles and has to admit to leaving the door unlocked... it goes on. The enormity of what they have done is starting to dawn on the McCanns' friends, but they are up to their necks in it by now - lying to the police, covering up a death, and at the centre of a huge media circus. If they thought their lives would be ruined because of the child neglect issue, that is as nothing compared to the situation they find themselves in now. But still, to their amazement, the body has not been found.

It occurs to the McCanns that without a body, no-one can prove anything. They figure out a way to collect the body in the car and dispose of it once and for all. They are home and dry. No-one can prove anything. They can go on collecting bucketfuls of cash and sympathy ad infinitum.

Then the cadaver dog is brought in and everything starts to look shaky. They are named as arguidos. Politicians, celebrities and the Pope are embarrassed to have had their names associated with them. They do not want to look stupid, they don't want people to know they were fooled by these people. Pressure is put on the Portuguese to drop this line of investigation. The media rallies around. The McCanns start using their oh-so-useful fund to sue people left, right and centre. The UK media is cowed by their threats, and stops questioning them and they give the McCanns thousands of pounds in out-of-court settlements. This just encourages them and the circus rolls on. Until finally Goncalo Amaral has the guts to stand up to them and fight them in court. For which Kate McCann despises and fears him in equal measure.

It doesn't NEED to be a big conspiracy, or a paedophile paradise, or a huge government cover-up. It really could be as simple as this.

Although why Scotland Yard is apparently so determined not to pursue this line of inquiry is not quite so easy to establish. I can only think that it is a matter of national pride - the UK cannot now turn around and admit that the Portuguese were right all along, because it would be monumentally embarrassing and humiliating, and we would be an international laughing stock. Whatever happens, don't blame the Brits. We're so superior, don't you know... Rolling Eyes

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Guest on 03.09.14 15:52

Suspiciousminds, you had me enrapt reading your post and thinking, albeit wishful thinking, that yes, perhaps it was as simple as all that....right up until your last paragraph.

The missing piece of the puzzle. It always come down to it, no matter how many differing theories are posted, this question always remains, why oh why have two doctors from Rothley and their accomplices friends got away with this? Despite the evidence we see from the police files, forensics, the dogs and from their own mouths. WHY?

(e.t.a my use of capitals is not to be shouty at you suspiciousminds, just wanted to add emphasis to my point!) thumbup

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by palm tree on 03.09.14 17:39

Another thing is the timing for the cadaver odour to transfer behind the sofa. Or maybe it happened on the Tuesday or Wednesday night, although they could have set it better.
IMO

palm tree

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by SuspiciousMinds on 03.09.14 19:17

Rose Quartz wrote:Suspiciousminds, you had me enrapt reading your post and thinking, albeit wishful thinking, that yes, perhaps it was as simple as all that....right up until your last paragraph.

The missing piece of the puzzle. It always come down to it, no matter how many differing theories are posted, this question always remains, why oh why have two doctors from Rothley and their accomplices friends got away with this? Despite the evidence we see from the police files, forensics, the dogs and from their own mouths. WHY?

(e.t.a my use of capitals is not to be shouty at you suspiciousminds, just wanted to add emphasis to my point!) thumbup

They got away with it because a) they were lucky and b) all the evidence against them is circumstantial. It won't stand up in court. Their lawyers will dissect it every which way. Cadaver dogs smelt something? That could be down to the sea bass / Kate's working clothes / unreliable dogs / someone else entirely. Can you prove it was Madeleine? No. Next question. They changed their stories. Does that prove they were guilty of killing and hiding their daughter? No. Next question. Kate refused to answer police questions. Does that prove she was hiding some heinous crime? No. Next question. And so on.

And no-one knows what they are supposed to have done anyway. Should they be tried for murder? If so, who murdered her? Or was it manslaughter? Did someone lose their temper and kill her accidentally? If so, who? When? Or was it an accidental death that was covered up? If so, why cover it up? Is it as simple as momentary panic, or was there something more sinister afoot?  

You can't just charge someone with an undefined crime. So with no forensic proof, no body, no confession, no witnesses and no idea of what actually happened, there is no chance of a conviction. That's the stumbling block the Portuguese police came up against in the end. They wanted to prosecute the McCanns, but they did not have enough evidence to take it to court. Scotland Yard have been told to treat it as an abduction, so they are bumbling about trying to find evidence of an abduction and so far they haven't found any. I am guessing that they do not have the power to formally re-interview the McCanns and their friends as it is still officially a Portuguese matter. Even if Portugal requested it, they would not succeed in getting the McCanns or their friends over there for questioning again anyway. They can't be extradited because without interviewing them again, there are no grounds to do so. It's a bit of a Catch-22 situation.

They got lucky. It happens sometimes. It doesn't have to mean that there is a major conspiracy afoot.

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by unchained melody on 03.09.14 20:28

Rose Quartz wrote:Suspiciousminds, you had me enrapt reading your post and thinking, albeit wishful thinking, that yes, perhaps it was as simple as all that....right up until your last paragraph.

The missing piece of the puzzle. It always come down to it, no matter how many differing theories are posted, this question always remains, why oh why have two doctors from Rothley and their accomplices friends got away with this? Despite the evidence we see from the police files, forensics, the dogs and from their own mouths. WHY?

(e.t.a my use of capitals is not to be shouty at you suspiciousminds, just wanted to add emphasis to my point!) thumbup

Hi Rose,

It always comes back to the big WHY? with any theory of what happened. If you look again at Richard Hall's video part four, I think the answer is there (right at the end...)

unchained melody

Posts : 161
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by SuspiciousMinds on 03.09.14 20:33

@palm tree wrote:Another thing is the timing for the cadaver odour to transfer behind the sofa. Or maybe it happened on the Tuesday or Wednesday night, although they could have set it better.
IMO

If Madeleine fell behind the sofa at 9.05 p.m. (or even as early as 8.30 p.m. when the McCanns left the apartment, since we only have Gerry's word for it that he saw Madeleine in bed at 9.05 p.m.) and the body was not moved until 10.00 p.m., there would have been time for the cadaver odour to have developed.

I really do think that if Madeleine had died on a previous night, and the McCanns successfully managed all the other unlikely shenanigans involved in that scenario (like faking crèche records, faking photographs, getting the nannies confused enough to claim they saw Madeleine when they didn't etc. etc.) then it defies belief that they would have made such a cock-up with the relatively easy job of faking a break-in.

They would have had plenty of time to get their stories straight with their friends in advance, which they clearly didn't.

It becomes harder to see why their not-particularly-close friends would have covered up for them, if thinking straight and not in the first stages of profound shock.

It requires everyone (especially the parents) to act normally and as if nothing has happened for hours or even days, without so much as a lip-wobble.

It would not have been a good idea to sedate the twins if you knew the police were going to be in the apartment later that evening.

Sorry - the Tuesday / Wednesday thing just doesn't stack up for me.

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by canada12 on 03.09.14 20:57

Hi SuspiciousMinds... I like your theory.

Re: the last para, why the coverup?

We keep trying to see things in terms of a single situation.

Why can't we consider two simultaneous possibilities?

1. Children were routinely sedated and Madeleine died accidentally as per the scenario suggested AND
2. Madeleine was ALSO involved in something which required a high level of deniability and cover-up.

canada12

Posts : 1461
Reputation : 193
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by SuspiciousMinds on 03.09.14 21:57

@canada12 wrote:Hi SuspiciousMinds... I like your theory.

Re: the last para, why the coverup?

We keep trying to see things in terms of a single situation.

Why can't we consider two simultaneous possibilities?

1. Children were routinely sedated and Madeleine died accidentally as per the scenario suggested AND
2. Madeleine was ALSO involved in something which required a high level of deniability and cover-up.
You can consider it, and it may even be true. But the bigger the conspiracy and the more people it involves, the less likely it gets. I can believe that there is widespread embarrassment in Whitehall and Westminster (across all parties) about Gordon Brown's inept political interference in a Portuguese affair. I can believe that there is a need to suppress the extent to which he abused his position to help out a chum, both for the sake of international relations and also to avoid any unwelcome probing into the role of senior civil servants who should not have allowed it to happen. Heck, I can even believe that the review was set up in the hope of finding another plausible explanation for Madeleine's disappearance which would take the heat off the McCanns, let the Government off the hook, and allow the story to slowly die.


But I find it hard to believe that a couple of ordinary doctors from Leicester are the guardians of such a massively huge secret of national importance that they must be protected from scrutiny at all costs. The UK media were happy to attack the McCanns until they were threatened with massive lawsuits, and they have been cowed into silence or meek acquiescence ever since. The McCanns have carefully controlled every aspect of their media appearances, only granting interviews to sympathetic fawners and approving questions in advance. This gives the impression that the media is all on their side, when it is really nothing more than a combination of fierce lawyers and careful PR.


In my opinion, they are not untouchable because of who they were or what they knew before Madeleine disappeared. They have become that way because of everything that has happened since.

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by XTC on 03.09.14 22:51

The jemmied tampered with shutter story and initial front door entrance suggests as some have said a hurried ad hoc removal.

Usually though when something is carried out in a hurry mistakes are made.

Luck?- maybe but removing a body out from PdL not only requires luck but gall.

Someone else may have been involved. As usual though despite the we are all in it together mentality if speed was of the esscence
then why did no one object or break ranks? They still haven't.

John Stalker's - What binds them together? words ring in my mind.

Straight forward panic is understandable but cool calculation isn't.

If I had a plan I wouldn't come out with a tale that would have been instantly seen through. The shutters etc.

If someone else was involved why would they risk being caught carrying the body of a child?

There has to be a reason why they all did what they did and still are doing.

What the reasonis I don't know. Some people do.

p.s. A broken neck will not necessarily involve any blood loss.

Good discussion though.

XTC

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by palm tree on 03.09.14 23:17

I honestly can't see 6 parents and maybe a grandparent agreeing to a cover up of the death of a child, even in shock horror. As said, MW provided a baby listening service and the mcs claim theirs were even more frequent checks. I wonder do MW still provide that service and how can that even be allowed to happen? What if a baby left on its own had vomited, then choked to death? Where would that leave them? Even if Madeleine was clearly deceased, your first instinct would be to call for an ambulance and then try your best at resuscitation? Especially doctors! There's more to this case than accidental death IMO

palm tree

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Guest on 04.09.14 0:15

@unchained melody wrote:
Rose Quartz wrote:Suspiciousminds, you had me enrapt reading your post and thinking, albeit wishful thinking, that yes, perhaps it was as simple as all that....right up until your last paragraph.

The missing piece of the puzzle. It always come down to it, no matter how many differing theories are posted, this question always remains, why oh why have two doctors from Rothley and their accomplices friends got away with this? Despite the evidence we see from the police files, forensics, the dogs and from their own mouths. WHY?

(e.t.a my use of capitals is not to be shouty at you suspiciousminds, just wanted to add emphasis to my point!) thumbup

Hi Rose,

It always comes back to the big WHY? with any theory of what happened. If you look again at Richard Hall's video part four, I think the answer is there (right at the end...)


Saved it to my youtube faves as soon as it became available but I haven't had time to watch it! Oh well, no time like the present, it's past midnight now, I plan to watch an hour then pause it but the best laid plans and all that...might be a long night pop2

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by SuspiciousMinds on 04.09.14 11:09

@palm tree wrote:I honestly can't see 6 parents and maybe a grandparent agreeing to a cover up of the death of a child, even in shock horror. As said, MW provided a baby listening service and the mcs claim theirs were even more frequent checks. I wonder do MW still provide that service and how can that even be allowed to happen? What if a baby left on its own had vomited, then choked to death? Where would that leave them? Even if Madeleine was clearly deceased, your first instinct would be to call for an ambulance and then try your best at resuscitation? Especially doctors! There's more to this case than accidental death IMO


MW did not offer the listening service at the Ocean Club for the reason that it was not an exclusive resort, shut off to outsiders, so it was not considered safe to do so. The McCanns and their friends knew that, but went ahead with their plans anyway. And it's pretty clear that their checks were not as frequent as claimed, due to the crying Pamela Fenn heard for over an hour on the Tuesday night. They left the children alone to go out drinking, and one of them died as a direct result.

The nature of their jobs meant that a child neglect charge would have repercussions way beyond the usual slap on the wrist. If they were electricians or plumbers, they could have taken their punishment and gone back to life as usual. Doctors, however, have to be beyond reproach - how could they have carried on with their jobs with a criminal record relating to child neglect? They stood to lose everything - their jobs, their homes, their comfortable lifestyle, and quite possibly their children. No wonder they panicked.

And as doctors, they would be the best people to know whether resuscitation was possible. If Madeleine had been dead long enough for her body to produce detectable amounts of cadaverine, I imagine it would have been pretty obvious to doctors straight away that she was past the point of no return. Which makes it worse for them in respect of the child neglect issue - if she was still warm, they could have called an ambulance and said they'd been there when she had her accident and had tried to save her. A cold body that has obviously been dead for a while is much harder to explain - it would be argued that they might have saved her if they had been in the flat at the time. And suddenly the possible charges escalate from child neglect to manslaughter.

I don't think their friends would have covered up for them if they had time to think about their actions. I think they were swept up in the horror of it all and the fear of what might happen to them. By the time they realised that they had over-reacted, they had gone too far - clearing up the crime scene, lying to the police and the media, pointing fingers at other "suspects"... If they confessed now, they would be even more certain to lose their jobs and all the rest of it, and would also face a whole host of even more serious charges which would put them in prison. And then, of course, they won thousands of pounds from the newspapers who "libelled" them - chances are, they would be forced to return that money. Even if they were given immunity from prosecution in return for information, they would still probably lose their jobs, go bankrupt and be spat on in the street for the rest of their lives. That's what "binds them together". They have absolutely no reason to rock the boat or drop the McCanns in it, so they stay out of the way of the media as much as possible, keep their heads down and avoid talking about what happened. What choice do they have?

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by SuspiciousMinds on 04.09.14 11:38

@XTC wrote:The jemmied tampered with shutter story and initial front door entrance suggests as some have said a hurried ad hoc removal.
I agree.

Usually though when something is carried out in a hurry mistakes are made.
Mistakes were made - their stories didn't match up, someone saw Gerry with the body, Kate didn't do a convincing enough job at faking the break-in. The mistakes are the reason that they are suspected at all.

Luck?- maybe but removing a body out from PdL not only requires luck but gall.
Imagine this. You are sitting in an apartment with the knowledge that your dead daughter's body is lying a few hundred yards from you, will almost certainly be found the next day, and you are likely to become the main suspect in a murder case. You think to yourself, if only you had had time before raising the alarm to take the body far enough away you could claim it couldn't possibly be you who took it there. Then you realise... the search has stopped for now, nobody is about. You still have time to do just that. It is your only hope. Desperate times call for desperate measures. And it doesn't get much more desperate than this.

Someone else may have been involved. As usual though despite the we are all in it together mentality if speed was of the esscence
then why did no one object or break ranks? They still haven't.
See my reply to Palm Tree above.

John Stalker's - What binds them together? words ring in my mind.
See my reply to Palm Tree above.

Straight forward panic is understandable but cool calculation isn't.
The calculation came after the panic. Once they had made the decision to cover everything up, they then had to deal with the consequences of that.

If I had a plan I wouldn't come out with a tale that would have been instantly seen through. The shutters etc.
They didn't have a plan beyond getting the body out of the apartment and staging the abduction. That's where the mistakes came in.

If someone else was involved why would they risk being caught carrying the body of a child?
Gerry carried the child, and it was a smaller risk than the body being found in the apartment.

There has to be a reason why they all did what they did and still are doing.
See my reply to Palm Tree above.



All in my opinion, obviously!


SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by HelenMeg on 04.09.14 11:45

If you read this post and then carry on reading you will see the whole entire logical picture.
I have just spent 1 hour reading this and subsequent posts. It all makes perfect sense when you see that
the Mc Canns were at the mercy of the other guests staying at the OC that week and had little choice but to cover up the death of their daughter.
http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/maddies-cube.html

HelenMeg

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by SuspiciousMinds on 04.09.14 17:06

@HelenMeg wrote:If you read this post and then carry on reading you will see the whole entire logical picture.
I have just spent 1 hour reading this and subsequent posts. It all makes perfect sense when you see that
the Mc Canns were at the mercy of the other guests staying at the OC that week and had little choice but to cover up the death of their daughter.
http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/maddies-cube.html

Sorry, I've read all that and I'm still clueless. What are the other guests at the OC supposed to have done that meant the McCanns had to stage a cover-up?

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by XTC on 04.09.14 22:22

@SuspiciousMinds wrote:
@XTC wrote:The jemmied tampered with shutter story and initial front door entrance suggests as some have said a hurried ad hoc removal.
I agree.

Usually though when something is carried out in a hurry mistakes are made.
Mistakes were made - their stories didn't match up, someone saw Gerry with the body, Kate didn't do a convincing enough job at faking the break-in. The mistakes are the reason that they are suspected at all.

Luck?- maybe but removing a body out from PdL not only requires luck but gall.
Imagine this. You are sitting in an apartment with the knowledge that your dead daughter's body is lying a few hundred yards from you, will almost certainly be found the next day, and you are likely to become the main suspect in a murder case. You think to yourself, if only you had had time before raising the alarm to take the body far enough away you could claim it couldn't possibly be you who took it there. Then you realise... the search has stopped for now, nobody is about. You still have time to do just that. It is your only hope. Desperate times call for desperate measures. And it doesn't get much more desperate than this.

Someone else may have been involved. As usual though despite the we are all in it together mentality if speed was of the esscence
then why did no one object or break ranks? They still haven't.
See my reply to Palm Tree above.

John Stalker's - What binds them together? words ring in my mind.
See my reply to Palm Tree above.

Straight forward panic is understandable but cool calculation isn't.
The calculation came after the panic. Once they had made the decision to cover everything up, they then had to deal with the consequences of that.

If I had a plan I wouldn't come out with a tale that would have been instantly seen through. The shutters etc.
They didn't have a plan beyond getting the body out of the apartment and staging the abduction. That's where the mistakes came in.

If someone else was involved why would they risk being caught carrying the body of a child?
Gerry carried the child, and it was a smaller risk than the body being found in the apartment.

There has to be a reason why they all did what they did and still are doing.
See my reply to Palm Tree above.



All in my opinion, obviously!

Suspicious minds

Thanks for the reply.

Yes it's very plausible and collective neglect may be a reason why they have all stuck together.

Yes their collective status may be  another reason.

But two people apart if it wasn't their fault that Madeleine died why would the other seven go along
with the tall tale?

The other seven's collective responsibility would be for their living ( safe?) children.

They would get a slap on the wrists and a bad press temporarily in the media and would have long been
forgotten whilst the media world concentrated their ire on the other two.

The only reason I can think of is that their actions contributed to what happened.

How can that be?

Paynes - baby monitor.

ROB and JT - checking regularly allegedly.

MO and RO the same.

McCanns same as above with assistants.

Diane Webster - relatively oblivious to it all.

Theories abound about all the children being in one apartment ( with a listening device?). If true why all the tales checking of different apartments? Why not say we were checking and listening at the one apartment?

If the above is true how did Madeleine become injured or die and was it in one of the other apartments?

I try not to be a so called conspiracy theorist but what hangs above this sad story of a missing child is that it has never been about the missing child. For my money the only people who were looking for Madeleine in the material sense were the original PJ team. Beyond that (and once the media and other British police agencies got involved ) there has been obfuscation PR and it still exists to this very day.

With the original Amaral led investigation and the first arguido Robert Murat there has been the stench of interference between the UK and the Portuguese body politic. I don't know why that was in all honesty but where politics/economics- (read business)  is concerned the fate of anyone nevermind a small child takes a much lower precedence.

I think there is a different but connected story surrounding Madeliene's disappearance which is highlighted by the Freedom of Information enquiries many have made and the lack of discussion on media blogs and the fear of any English publisher to bring out any book that may be critical of the whole affair. If you need policemen and women to sign Confidentiality clauses on top of their legal obligations anyway then you are adding icing to the icing on the cake. Why is that necessary when the police inviolved know the rules on confidentaility anyway? It is still an " ongoing investigation"

This is why I think Summers and Swann's book may be the equivalent of The 9/11 Commissions Report but not in the ' Official ' sense but a PR
media sense to convince particularly the British public that it was a mess from the start. We are all to blame and the existing evidence is inconclusive and no further evidence ( despite SY's attempts ) can be found in order to progrees further. Sorry and all that but we have tried our best. Meanwhile if you have any information please contact ....................

I'm afraid certain people think the opposite and like blacksmith think it is just a matter of quizzing the McCanns more deeply:

He/they say:

" for what it's worth the Abreu and JT conversations, not, not the dogs and other purely suggestive material, are the two items of evidence that  finally convinced me that KM has a serious case to answer ."

Fair enough that's the belief and it's an opinion just like mine but the inescapable truth for myself is that this investigation is going nowhere near a Court and will never be tested.

Myself and blacksmith and others can hope all we want and personally would like the witness testimony to be taken to pieces re-analysed and decry - Ah- Ha!! it was there all the time. How did we miss it?

The problem is lack of additional evidence not existing evidence ( including changing testimony and lawyers advice ) and there appears to be no organised attempt to find it save a few dead people and mad burglars with mobiles. Seek and ye shall find is the mantra but if your remit means excluding the Tapas 9 from your seeking then you can only seek potential other abductors/ removers who are NOT them. I honestly believe that there is no when we have exhausted all other avenues we will get to the parents type trap going on.

Finally it matters very little in my humble opinion whether the new book is pro parent or not  I will buy it and read it. We have to remember  the 9/11 Commission are not regarded as the guardians of the truth of what happened and the blogs and websites still exist and theories are posited many many years on despite the 'Authoritiveness ' of its authors. In other words not everybody believes them.

Just opinion  - that's all though

XTC

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by SuspiciousMinds on 04.09.14 23:16


Suspicious minds

Thanks for the reply.

Yes it's very plausible and collective neglect may be a reason why they have all stuck together.

Yes their collective status may be  another reason.

But two people apart if it wasn't their fault that Madeleine died why would the other seven go along
with the tall tale?

The other seven's collective responsibility would be for their living ( safe?) children.

They would get a slap on the wrists and a bad press temporarily in the media and would have long been
forgotten whilst the media world concentrated their ire on the other two.

The only reason I can think of is that their actions contributed to what happened.

How can that be?

Paynes - baby monitor.

ROB and JT - checking regularly allegedly.

MO and RO the same.

McCanns same as above with assistants.

Diane Webster - relatively oblivious to it all.

Theories abound about all the children being in one apartment ( with a listening device?). If true why all the tales checking of different apartments? Why not say we were checking and listening at the one apartment?

If the above is true how did Madeleine become injured or die and was it in one of the other apartments?
I don't think collective neglect is the reason they have stuck together. I think they acted in shock on the spur of the moment, but in colluding to help the McCanns by cleaning the scene of the 'crime', helping them to come up with a timeline and giving false information to the police, they got themselves more and more entangled in the web very quickly to the point where it became impossible for them to extricate themselves. They ARE protecting their own families - from a stupid decision they made in a state of shock and after a couple of glasses of wine, and which they have very probably regretted ever since.

This is why I think they must have all been together when Madeleine was found. If a friend came up to you and said, "I've just found my daughter dead and I need you to help me cover it up", what would you think? Most likely you would assume they had caused the death themselves in some way - you would start asking questions and be appalled at the idea of covering it up. You would try to talk your friend out of it. And your friend would be taking the most almighty risk by telling you in the first place, with no idea of how you might react or who you might tell.

On the other hand, if you were WITH your friend when he found his daughter, you would realise that there was no intent, no murder. Just a terrible accident, a devastated parent, and a situation which threatened to destroy his whole life as the result of leaving his children to go out drinking with his friends - just as you have done yourself that very night. There but for the grace of God. The poor man. I'm guessing you would be a whole lot more sympathetic, and a lot more inclined to help him out. He's moving the body. All you need to do is a bit of quick scrubbing behind the sofa and when the body is found elsewhere, the child's injuries can be attributed to a mysterious abductor and your poor friend will be able to get on with his life. There'll be a funeral, everyone can go home, and it will all be forgotten about in a couple of months.

Only it wasn't. Because the body was never found, and the story just ran and ran. I don't think any of them expected that.

SuspiciousMinds

Posts : 59
Reputation : 19
Join date : 2014-06-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tuesday.

Post by Hicks on 05.09.14 13:55

@SuspiciousMinds wrote:

Suspicious minds

Thanks for the reply.

Yes it's very plausible and collective neglect may be a reason why they have all stuck together.

Yes their collective status may be  another reason.

But two people apart if it wasn't their fault that Madeleine died why would the other seven go along
with the tall tale?

The other seven's collective responsibility would be for their living ( safe?) children.

They would get a slap on the wrists and a bad press temporarily in the media and would have long been
forgotten whilst the media world concentrated their ire on the other two.

The only reason I can think of is that their actions contributed to what happened.

How can that be?

Paynes - baby monitor.

ROB and JT - checking regularly allegedly.

MO and RO the same.

McCanns same as above with assistants.

Diane Webster - relatively oblivious to it all.

Theories abound about all the children being in one apartment ( with a listening device?). If true why all the tales checking of different apartments? Why not say we were checking and listening at the one apartment?

If the above is true how did Madeleine become injured or die and was it in one of the other apartments?
I don't think collective neglect is the reason they have stuck together. I think they acted in shock on the spur of the moment, but in colluding to help the McCanns by cleaning the scene of the 'crime', helping them to come up with a timeline and giving false information to the police, they got themselves more and more entangled in the web very quickly to the point where it became impossible for them to extricate themselves. They ARE protecting their own families - from a stupid decision they made in a state of shock and after a couple of glasses of wine, and which they have very probably regretted ever since.

This is why I think they must have all been together when Madeleine was found. If a friend came up to you and said, "I've just found my daughter dead and I need you to help me cover it up", what would you think? Most likely you would assume they had caused the death themselves in some way - you would start asking questions and be appalled at the idea of covering it up. You would try to talk your friend out of it. And your friend would be taking the most almighty risk by telling you in the first place, with no idea of how you might react or who you might tell.

On the other hand, if you were WITH your friend when he found his daughter, you would realise that there was no intent, no murder. Just a terrible accident, a devastated parent, and a situation which threatened to destroy his whole life as the result of leaving his children to go out drinking with his friends - just as you have done yourself that very night. There but for the grace of God. The poor man. I'm guessing you would be a whole lot more sympathetic, and a lot more inclined to help him out. He's moving the body. All you need to do is a bit of quick scrubbing behind the sofa and when the body is found elsewhere, the child's injuries can be attributed to a mysterious abductor and your poor friend will be able to get on with his life. There'll be a funeral, everyone can go home, and it will all be forgotten about in a couple of months.

Only it wasn't. Because the body was never found, and the story just ran and ran. I don't think any of them expected that.
I see a completely different scenario when reading your set of possible events.
 Firstly, if I was with my friend when he found his daughter, I would realise that it was just a terrible accident in between checks. I would then urge him to contact the authorities as I would be his witness to the accident. There is no way I would collude with a cover up. The forensics would prove that an accident had taken place anyway so no need to fool anyone. But we are not talking about one person being asked to cover up, we are talking about seven other people, who apparently were all like minded. That in itself is very strange. to me.

 The act of dumping your child's body in a foreign country, in such circumstances, is a cold hearted act imo. And anyone who would collude in that act is just as inhuman. How would it be possible to 'forget about it in a couple of months'?

If an accident had taken place, out of the blue, the parents would be a state of shock, there would be grief, guilt, remorse. Only a short while after Madeleine's disappearance the McCann's revealed that they didn't blame themselves. If they could have gone back in time they would have had a better look around at people who may have been watching them.... that's what Kate said.....Not...we would never have left her alone. Unbelievable! 

Normally in such cases grief over time turns to anger which inevitably starts to tear at relationships. Not so in the McCann's case, they never contradict each other, always converse in unison, it's as though each sentence has been well rehearsed. 

There was another reason- as yet unknown- why Madeleine's body could not be given to the Portuguese authorities.

There was another reason- as yet unknown- why a government media manipulator-liar- was hired to 'filter' all news, regarding the McCann's and they're friends, into the public domain.

There was another reason-as yet unknown- why John Buck, the British Ambassador to Portugal, left the Diplomatic service only a few days after the McCann's were made Alguido's. Most, if not all the Diplomatic staff in Portugal at that time were moved on elsewhere.

There was another reason-as yet unknown- why Gerry McCann ( filmed in secret on the balcony) was laughing and joking only days after telling the world that paedophiles had broken into his apartment and had abducted his four year old daughter. For any normal parent, an unthinkable hell that would turn your stomach at every waking moment.
Even if it was an accident, why the laughing? It is chilling to watch.  

All the above my opinion only.

____________________
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 palm tree on 05.09.14 14:04

Even if it was my brother, there's no way would I cover up the death never mind cleaning the scene. I couldn't stand by and watch as he carried her off to be disposed off. I'd risk the slap on the wrist rather than involvement of part of the concelement of the death of a child.
IMO

palm tree

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 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