Re: My Theory

by Guest 10.04.15 13:25

WMD - not specifically. I've been looking at other cases recently like Sarah Payne, JonBenet Ramsey, the young girl Jasmine who was abducted in a station, Marc Dutroux...there are so many possibilities, none of them nice. I don't think the 'why' is really answerable without knowing the 'who'. And likewise the 'how', which is why I made it my starting point.

Again, just to be clear to everyone, I am not saying 'this is what happened'. What it is, is a theory I formulated after tons of research (even dreamed about for days before I wrote it down). Nothing in this case is easy to define as fact and assuredly, I am not trying to change minds. I'm saying 'this is what could have happened, help me pick it apart'.

I'm sure you can imagine, there is a degree of confirmation bias when you think you've solved something. I am mainly asking here to try and remove that from my own mind/theory. The point about marks on the wall has made me think.

by Guest 10.04.15 13:52

cyaneyed wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
cyaneyed wrote:
What contradictions are you referring to specifically?
You can not be serious.

Again, you don't add to a debate with lines like that, at least try!

How long you been following this case?

And you are not aware of the contradictions?

Whoosh (of curtains)... click (of the key).

That bad ass known/unknown abductor even got to the parents to divert suspicion from him probably.

by Guest 10.04.15 13:59

Since the beginning, much closer recently. Many nights pouring over the files, photos etc, like everyone here. And yes, I am aware there are contradictions, even if you selectively ignore what I said when you quote me. They have to be taken individually to be explained (and avoid confirmation bias!).

So again, to which contradictions are you referring? I am not aware of the 'click' you're referring to so if you can show me (or tell me where to look), I will see what to make of it.

by Guest 10.04.15 14:02

They have to be taken individually to be explained (and avoid confirmation bias!).

You're not for real.

How many times you been to this forum before?

I'm out of here.

by Gaggzy 10.04.15 14:05

cyaneyed wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
cyaneyed wrote:
What contradictions are you referring to specifically?
You can not be serious.

Again, you don't add to a debate with lines like that, at least try!

I am serious in the sense that I can't respond to individual things if you paint with a broad brush. There were a lot of discrepancies in the statements, which is why I went with the initial statements in forming this theory. There are a lot of natural mistakes, for instance assuming the window was the entry point. I understand the skeptical view that this was an ill conceived lie which was later retracted, but in the scope of my theory, the McCanns are not involved (again I realise that is an instant 'switch off' for some people), and it would be perfectly natural to assume that had been the entry point in the heat of the moment. Later, with hindsight, calm and more knowledge this could be discounted.

The sentence marked in red is probably the most accurate thing you have written on the thread.

Just a point about Kate allegedly 'punching walls.'
If she had punched walls, why didn't she have shattered knuckles / split and torn skin?
I've seen the state of someone's hand after they'd pouched a wall just the once, and believe me, it wasn't a pretty sight.

Those bruises on Kate's wrists are either impact from someone blocking her punches with their forearm, or from the result of being grabbed and restrained.

You can draw your own conclusions on why that had happened.

by Guest 10.04.15 14:12

@Bluebag - You obviously have nothing to add, thanks for trying though, maybe your attitude got you some 'cool points'

@Gaggzy - Very good point. I had thought to myself that her knuckles should at the very least be raw. However I guess it depends on the manner in which she threw the punches, for instance if she wasn't punching straight forward as you'd imagine, but more in a downward fashion, hitting the wall with the base of her hand. More bashing than punching. Of course this is just speculation.

by Richard IV 10.04.15 14:17

@ cyaneyed " Kate explained the scent of death on her clothing being logical since she was 'around 9 cadavers in her profession before the holiday'. "

Cyaneyed, I was under the impression a relative of Kate`s had said this about 6 cadavers. I didn`t realise Kate actually said it herself. Can you provide a link for this please.

by Guest 10.04.15 14:25

Richard IV wrote:@ cyaneyed " Kate explained the scent of death on her clothing being logical since she was 'around 9 cadavers in her profession before the holiday'. "

Cyaneyed, I was under the impression a relative of Kate`s had said this about 6 cadavers. I didn`t realise Kate actually said it herself. Can you provide a link for this please.

You're quite right, it was her mother who said it, as what Kate had said. This is something else that needs corroboration and I had overlooked that fact, thank you.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.04.15 14:28

Richard IV wrote:@ cyaneyed " Kate explained the scent of death on her clothing being logical since she was 'around 9 cadavers in her profession before the holiday'. "

Cyaneyed, I was under the impression a relative of Kate`s had said this about 6 cadavers. I didn`t realise Kate actually said it herself. Can you provide a link for this please.

cyaneyed is wrong.

Richard IV is right.

The relative was, I think, the wife of Tony Rickwood, the quicksand fetishist who liked to compose pictures of near-naked women drowning in mud, Mrs Rickwood, a.k.a. Philomena McCann.

Or was she the one that siad the blood spatters on the wall were 'mosquitoes flying imto the wall'?

I hear btw that Tony Rickwood is not the only one close to the McCann case into 'deviant art'.

More of that maybe on another thread, another day

by Guest 10.04.15 14:36

Perhaps our posts overlapped Tony.

I don't understand your deviant art comment, unless you are still strawmanning and looked up the fact that I have one (which I do, I gave out the username on this forum already so its hardly super sleuthing), in which case I'd love to hear how I am supposed to be 'close to the McCanns'? I can't see another interpretation of your comment so please excuse me if I have the wrong end of the stick there.

Would you like to expound on the 'shoals of evidence' or did you just want to snark?

by plebgate 10.04.15 14:58

Another theory bites the dust IMO.

Looking forward to reading the new thread from Tony about another relative who is fond of deviant art.

by Guest 10.04.15 15:06

plebgate wrote:Another theory bites the dust IMO.

Looking forward to reading the new thread from Tony about another relative who is fond of deviant art.

Care to expand on your opinion? People have raised good points which need further investigating, but noone has said anything that disproves it that I noticed. I am looking for it to be disproved so please...

by plebgate 10.04.15 15:16

You have asked us to discount all the backfitting etc. Tell us why would the backfitting be needed?

Was Maddie's extreme tiredness when picked up from creche ever told to the police at the time Maddie disappeared? If not, why not?

When YOU can explain the backfitting then maybe posters will give your theory a good read and think about it, until then I too think BS.

by Richard IV 10.04.15 15:21

Cyaneyed.

Before anyone can discuss your theory, you have to explain the presence of cadaver odour behind the settee, in the wardrobe, in the flower bed, on sean`s shirt, on Kate`s trousers and on cuddle cat. There`s really no point in discussing any of your theory unless you can give a good reason for the cadaver odour.

by Guest 10.04.15 15:28

I think the only 'backfitting' I have mentioned is the window as an entry point? I asked for specific other examples and I would like to see if they can be made sense of. Simply saying 'you are ignoring (insert noun)' isn't fair - give me something tangible to debate.

Richard - I have answered those things, that was asked already. Kate's exposure at work could be a partial explanation, or contamination after the fact, with one of the abductors returning to the scene, playing along with the search. As I said, this explains why there was no scent in the children's bedroom, because access to that room was limited.

by Jamming 10.04.15 15:45

cyaneyed wrote:I think the only 'backfitting' I have mentioned is the window as an entry point? I asked for specific other examples and I would like to see if they can be made sense of. Simply saying 'you are ignoring (insert noun)' isn't fair - give me something tangible to debate.

Richard - I have answered those things, that was asked already. Kate's exposure at work could be a partial explanation, or contamination after the fact, with one of the abductors returning to the scene, playing along with the search. As I said, this explains why there was no scent in the children's bedroom, because access to that room was limited.

Was it ? How do you specifically know that ? But all other areas that this was detected were a free for all for everyone who wandered in yeh ? And you know that too

So your theory includes the possibility of the abductor, unknown or maybe known to the family, going back to the scene and planting cadaver scent willingly or maybe unwillingly everywhere they could, including I believe a wardrobe in the parents bedroom ?

OK

Kate's exposure at work ? righto

by Guest 10.04.15 15:53

Unwittingly, and its not hard to imagine someone pretending to look in a cupboard.

None of us 'specifically' know that anything written in the case was 100% as it happened. My theory is based on the initial statements and reactions. There are multiple people, including Sylvia Batista for instance, who talk about the scene in 5a. She even mentions looking in a cupboard!

by Jamming 10.04.15 15:58

cyaneyed wrote:Unwittingly, and its not hard to imagine someone pretending to look in a cupboard.

None of us 'specifically' know that anything written in the case was 100% as it happened. My theory is based on the initial statements and reactions. There are multiple people, including Sylvia Batista for instance, who talk about the scene in 5a. She even mentions looking in a cupboard!

Not hard to imagine someone, who the Mc's allowed to look in the cupboard in their bedroom, being allowed to look in the very room where according to your theory, the abduction took place either is it ?

by Guest 10.04.15 15:59

Depends entirely when they arrived, they wouldn't if they had arrived slightly later on, which they probably would since they'd been previously indisposed...

by Jamming 10.04.15 16:04

cyaneyed wrote:Depends entirely when they arrived, they wouldn't if they had arrived slightly later on, which they probably would since they'd been previously indisposed...

oh yes, of course....

by G-Unit 10.04.15 16:05

9.15 Gerry and Jez chatting
9.15 Jane passes
9.20 Jane returns to Tapas
9.30 Matt and Russell appear
9.35 Matt returns to Tapas
9.45 Jane relieves Russell
9.50 Russell returns to Tapas
10.00 Kate comes to check

Which 'gap' is your favourite?

Only one witness mentioned the route shown on the pic below, and it was mentioned after the dog's route was seen.

Gerald McCann 10th May;

That, between Monday and Wednesday, not knowing the precise date, when they left the residence by the main door, to place the children in the respective creches, MADELEINE left[went] running to the left to the extreme opposite of the residential blocks where they were lodged, playing with the twins. That they had gone down to the furthest point away from those blocks, not knowing exactly how, the three children got into the gardens at the rear [of the blocks]. Then they followed the inside corridor [pathway] at the rear, next to the hedges[fences] up to the street that led to the secondary reception.

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

If a car was parked in the car park where the arrows lead, Carpenter's evidence is immaterial as he was looking at cars to his left on the road outside the Tapas Reception.

by jeanmonroe 10.04.15 16:09

(see, I am here to find holes, this is what I was looking for)

Course you are 'Kate' winkwink

"There are a lot of natural mistakes, for instance assuming the window was the entry point. I understand the skeptical view that this was an ill conceived lie which was later retracted, but in the scope of my theory, the McCanns are not involved"

There are a lot of NATURAL 'mistakes' = LIES!

Sceptical 'view' = 'found out!'

The McCanns are not 'involved'?

I suggest you contact LP, because they have said, publicly, in a UK court room, 'there is no evidence to eliminate them (McCanns) from involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (owtte)

"the McCann's ARE NOT 'involved'

Course they aren't, 'Kate' winkwink

"ill conceived lie"? 'lieS' surely?

KM has already admitted, in her 'bewk', to LYING to the police, MONTHS after the 'event'

Probably THAT was 'ill conceived' also?

I won't mention GM's own sister, Trish Cameron, saying 'when they last checked, at half past nine, the kids were, all asleep, sleeping, window shut, shutters shut'

WHO, are the 'THEY' that 'checked' the (all) THREE kids at 9:30pm and saw them ALL 'asleep, sleeping'?

The same 'persons' who must have also SEEN that the 'window AND shutters' WERE also SHUT, at 9:30pm! I presume.

Oh bugger!

I've mentioned it now!

Remind me, WHAT 'time' did JT 'see' Madeleine 'being carried off'?

Oh, that's right....................9:15pm, a full 15 minutes BEFORE the 'checkers', at 9:30pm, found the kids room, and the 'kids' to be 'untouched'

I can see your point about the 'burglators' going 'back' to the apartment.

He, she they, er, 'FORGOT' to 'set' the SCENE at 9:15pm when Maddie was 'carried off'

What a 'dumbass' 'gang' of burglators!'

Had to OPEN that window and RAISE that shutter, didn't he, she, they?

Otherwise people might be 'sceptical' that Madeleine 'was abducted' at all!

I'm afraid only 1/10 for 'effort' 'Kate' winkwink

by Guest 10.04.15 16:14

Great reply G-Unit, thank you. Which gap is anyone's guess and I don't pretend to answer it, aside from knowing it happened within 45 minutes (within this theory).

Carpenter left around 2110, he could have seen a car arrive/leave/in drive/waiting in that car park and thought nothing of it at the time.

It's interesting Gerry mentioning that fact ex post facto, especially considering the route had been blamed on 'refuse'. Reminds me of the playing cards comment in the arguido interview.

@Jeanmonroe You have quite the imagination :)

by jeanmonroe 10.04.15 16:23

You can 'reply' to anything i mentoned in my last 'post'.

You can start with GM's sister, Trisha Cameron's (9:30pm) 'statement' if you like.

As for "@Jeanmonroe You have quite the imagination :) "

Now THAT is DEFINITELY 'something' 'Kate'............. WOULD say! winkwink

Pretty effectual FACTUAL 'imagination' you'll agree, no doubt.?

by Guest 10.04.15 16:33

Maybe if you try typing like a normal human, without your attempt at being clever with quote marks and capitals, and I will know what you're actually getting at, other than bizarrely implying that I am Kate (oops, 'Kate')?