"Fresh agony for the McCanns"

ChippyM wrote:Ah

Verdi wrote:

sami wrote:

Roidininki wrote:Thing is no sedating drugs were amongst the medications found ?

In the McCanns apartment only though.  I don't recall the other apartments being searched, nothing to say medication was not present in the other apartments.

Cocaine I believe is quite popular these days amongst middle class (?) professionals when socialising.  Not suggesting that is the case here but it's not beyond the realms of possibility.  I have also read in the past that narcotics and/or alcohol are commonly used to prime children (and indeed adults) in cases of sex abuse.  Without knowing whether any or all of the McCann children were drugged, which is not known, it remains a moot point enticing all manner of speculation.

I'm in two minds about the twins being sedated.  Smacks to me of a devious route to plant the idea that Madeleine was sedated by the alleged intruder - be it burglar or abductor or combination of the two.  They tried hard to promote this idea which, under the circumstances, could have easily be confirmed by medical examination - but they elected against that idea and opted instead for sticking a hand in the twins faces and feeling their back for signs of breathing.

Geeez, the more you think abut this case the more farcical it becomes.

 Good points. I would imagine many people would be surprised about the scale of recreational drug use amongst professionals (and many working people) and not just cocaine either. Add to this a dose of narcissism, an over confidence in your abilities as a medic to stay in control and access to a plethora of controlled substances and I think you have quite a plausible hypothetical scenario.

 I can see how kids might get into drugs stash with awful results, the people with you were all doing it too or the kids were all left together and could face charges and child welfare isues if the truth were known. Some of the kids might have been ill but pulled through? The worse case scenario which is bolstered by the Gaspar statement and the rumoured Mi5 involvement is horrible to contemplate but I could believe it although yes it is speculation almost without direct evidence.  I think Amaral wants to prove they are lying about what happened that night first, before any other theories.

Bishop Brennan wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:

If, for example, the McCanns had given Madeleine a sedative on the evening of May 3 rd, their intention would have been that she should sleep soundly whilst they dined out with their friends.

This is critical. Imagine the scenario if they had sedated her (not just Calpol!) :  

The McCanns return from their evening out - they find poor Madeleine on the floor. She has passed away.  The horror, panic, grief and shock would be immense.  This is not the time for arcane deliberations on the Portuguese laws of negligent homicide.   This is sheer emotion.  What will they do?  Poor Maddie is gone - there will be an autopsy.  Tests will also be run on the twins.  All 3 will show traces of sedative.

In that situation, the laws don't matter. Accident or manslaughter - totally irrelevant.  The McCanns (both doctors) will be struck off back home.  Guaranteed.   Social Services will almost certainly get involved in the UK and they might very well lose the twins.   Especially if there was a history of abandoning them on most nights of the holiday.   The last thing on their minds is whether they face charges in Portugal.  What they KNOW they face is the loss of their job, the loss of their income, and quite likely the loss of the twins.  All that on top of the devastating and sudden death of their lovely 3-year old daughter.

For all that you might think of the McCanns and how they have behaved, that night is a night that nobody would wish on their worst enemy.  They were plunged into hell, and had to make a decision.  If they truly did hide the body and construct the story, it's an incredible decision.  Which in turn is what has made the case so fascinating for everyone for 9 whole years.  An astonishing decision, but one they might well have made...


 

Tony Bennett wrote:

@ suzyjohnson     I note that you believe the Smiths' evidence in its entirety. Please, when you have a bit of time, have a look at some of the 'SMITHMAN' threads on here, where you will find out about all the contradictions, changes of story and numerous other baffling puzzles about the Smiths' evidence which explain why so many people now have a very different view of the Smiths' evidence. Also, remember that though on 20 September 2007 he claimed to be 60% to 80% sure that Gerry McCann was the man he said he had seen on 3 May, only three months or so later he was working with the McCann Team - and has been ever since. One thing is crystal clear from all of this; any evidence he ever gave in a court of law on this case would be utterly worthless

whodunit wrote:

Claire25 wrote:If it was a simply violent act though, I just cannot believe that the other Tapas members would have covered it up though.  Sorry, I do believe there's more to it.  Will have to agree to disagree.

Exactly.

 Without this context one can only have a partial or limited perspective. The McCanns were not isolated in their efforts to cover this up. The assistance they received must be taken into account when attempting to determine what possibly could have happened, and what probably did not happen. The help the McCs received in the cover up, not only from the Tapas but from the British diplomatic corps is unusual in the extreme. This help suggests something other than a simple accident, or even a murder involving only the McCs. The motive had to be very strong to induce the Tapas to assist in a cover up. Trying to help friends avoid responsibility for an accident OR a murder is simply not enough of a motive. Place yourself in the shoes of any one of the Tapas imagine one of your friends suddenly had to contend with a dead child. If they suggested a cover up to you, would you go along with it or would you immediately alert the police? What in God's green earth would be enough to induce you to go along with it? Think about it....

Realist wrote:There may well be a school of thought which would subscribe to the fact that disposing of a body and concocting a spurious abduction story would rule out any possibility of an accident. 

I can think of numerous disadvantages, but I  can't think of one solitary advantage to be gained by turning an accident into a potential murder enquiry. It would be unprecedented, why, even yer average Broadmoor candidate would have second thoughts about  that one.

Realist wrote:

You'll no doubt note that Oldfield wasn't prepared to state that he saw Madeleine in the apt. but willing to state the twins were there. That's because he didn't know what had happened to her, but more poignantly, didn't know when she had gone missing. He wasn't going to state she was there, only to discover at a subsequent stage that the police could prove she was missing earlier.

whodunit wrote:@suzyjohnson--"The death would still have been the result of an accident (for example, falling) but the fact that the child was drowsy beforehand due to sedatives might mean that the death was ruled manslaughter."

And still we don't know why the British govt, against sound advice from the Ambassador, and the Tapas 7 would participate in covering up a manslaughter that happened under circumstances that had absolutely nothing to do with them.

The presence of sedatives hardly accounts for parents concealing the corpse of their child. These are educated doctors. They could surely come up with a plausible explanation for why the child had certain medications in her system.

A manslaughter/accident theory simply doesn't account for all of the known facts and circumstances surrounding this case.

suzyjohnson wrote:

pennylane wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:

Realist wrote:

pennylane wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:Yes, I bet Mr Smith wishes he'd never heard of the McCanns. He clearly doesn't want the publicity and that's a good thing. He has the younger members of his family to protect at the same time.

But, also, the Smiths sighting could be absolutely crucial at the end of the day, it's better if he doesn't talk about it.

I completely agree with you suzy!

Whereas I am in total agreement with Monsieur le Bennett on this occasion, in that if Mr. Smith informed me that Ilford was in the borough of Redbridge, I'd want to check if there had been any recent boundary changes.

I can't see why anyone would discount the Smith sighting, I think it's genuine.

And so do I believe it's genuine, suzy!

I think I'm in the minority pennylane. I think the most likely explanation would be that GM made a hasty decision in response to an accident which occurred earlier on the evening of May 3 rd. Having been seen by the Smith family, I think it's probable that GM ran back to the apartment and told JT who then decided to say that she had seen a man, in similar clothes, at a time when it could not have been GM because he had an alibi in Jez Wilkins.

suzyjohnson wrote:

whodunit wrote:@suzyjohnson---"But supposing some, or all, of the tapas groups children had also been given sedatives so that their parents could dine out? That would be a reason why some of the group might cover for the McCanns. Likewise, if Madeleine had taken an illegal drug, for example cocaine, and the group were also under the influence of the drug.

Alternatively, it has just occurred to me, is it possible that, Madeleine having suffered an accident, whether other doctors within the group could have made a medical mistake that contributed to her death? Would that be a reason why they might close ranks to effect a cover up?"


Again, we must take all of the known facts into account.

Without the Gaspar statements, your theory is as plausible as anything else one could come up with.

But taking the Gaspar statements into account, which alleges open discussion of pedophilia activity within a group setting...

If you look at Kate McCann's situation though, she either knows already what happened to her child, or I'm certain she would want want to make every effort to find out if she did not know. I just cannot imagine she would cover for Gerry McCann or David Payne if there were any truth in the Gaspar statements.

whodunit wrote:@MayMuse---"Unfortunately, however sickening there are many partners who would cover/go along with despicable actions/crimes & even those who would play a part. Not saying this is the case here but there are a number of cases of that very same thing, even involving babies of less than 6 months old!!!?? "


Yes, people should look up the case of Ian Watkins, if you can stand it. There are some severely sick people out there and a lot of them have given birth unfortunately.

Realist wrote:The reason one can discount the sedative/accident theory is because it would be a far easier scenario to explain than the high risk strategy of disposing of her body and concocting a kidnapping story. The latter is an act born out of desperation where there is no other alternative available. The very element of 'accident' implies that it would be difficult to prosecute and easy to cast doubt upon in the event of a prosecution.

Common logic would dictate that the stance they adopted culminated from a situation that could not possibly have been interpreted as some kind of accident. There is a seismic difference between 'unintentional' and 'accidental.' Whatever transpired with Madeleine had to be a criminal act, not some form of accident, hence the necessity to dispose of her body etc.

Far from being the most plausible explanation, the sedation theory is one of the more implausible explanations. The simplest and most plausible explanation is that one of the McCanns whacked Madeleine and that she died as a direct result of the aforementioned, or an indirect result by knocking her head on a hard object/surface. Either way, there would be evidence of bruising which could not be contributed to being accidental. I reiterate, hence the necessity to dispose of her body etc..

All of this wasn't an instantaneous decision with Gerry wandering the streets of Praia da Luz openly carrying a child's body for the world and his wife to witness around 10-10.30 pm. That's why, along with Jane Tanner's sighting, we can safely dismiss the Smiths' sighting. Madeleine's body was undoubtably disposed of prior to the McCanns leaving for the Tapas bar, a tenet shared by one of the forum's more logical contributors,  Petermac.

 The fact that Kate McCann had familiarised herself with the surrounding terrain on her daily jogging jaunts and Gerry McCann's brobdingnagian sports bag appearing to have gone missing bears far more relevance to this case than sedatives which may or may not have been present. In fact there is no evidence whatsoever to infer that the McCanns were sedating any of their children, particularly in the vein that the  remaining two were never tested for drug samples.

loopzdaloop wrote:

I also think the Smith Sighting is genuine. There is no reason for it not to be.

whodunit wrote:Who are they, GEG?

whodunit wrote:@MayMuse---"Unfortunately, however sickening there are many partners who would cover/go along with despicable actions/crimes & even those who would play a part. Not saying this is the case here but there are a number of cases of that very same thing, even involving babies of less than 6 months old!!!?? "


Yes, people should look up the case of Ian Watkins, if you can stand it. There are some severely sick people out there and a lot of them have given birth unfortunately.

whodunit wrote:@suzyjohnson --"

"If you look at Kate McCann's situation though, she either knows already what happened to her child, or I'm certain she would want want to make every effort to find out if she did not know. I just cannot imagine she would cover for Gerry McCann or David Payne if there were any truth in the Gaspar statements."

Why can't you imagine it? I know it's hard but if you've ever spent time reading the testimonies of people who were abused you would know that mothers can be: 1. enablers 2. oblivious or heaven forbid 3. complicit. Under any of these circumstances they will certainly cover for an abusive spouse. I personally know of such a woman myself. Her daughter has not spoken to her since she left home. Indeed, in the town where I grew up a group of grandchildren got together and charged their grandfather with sexual abuse. One of the allegations [the case was proven and the old man spent the rest of his days in prison] was that his daughters, their mothers, turned a blind eye to what was going on and continued depositing the children at his house for overnight stays. Mainly, the kids contended, this because the daughters had been abused themselves.