When did Madeleine McCann really disappear?

It seems that some people are coming to the conclusion that Madeleine disappeared before May 3rd, that the abduction was staged, and that witnesses who later come along to say that they had seen Madeleine were actually planted to add credibility to the McCanns version of events.

It seems to me that an abduction on the evening of May 3rd was impossible and this was proven by Moita Flores in a documentary.

That leaves, Madeleine to have died on May 3rd 2007.  If that was the case, do we really believe that the McCanns, in just a few hours:

Found Madeleine
Tended to her
Tended to the twins, bathed them, put them to bed
Hid the evidence
Had a major clean up
Got over the shock and were thinking straight
Hid the Body
Made their plans
Staged the abduction
Took a shower
Poured their NZ wine
Went calmly down to the Tapas Bar

Or, do we look back at earlier days of that holiday and study the McCanns behaviour, the lack of photographs, the pics that were handed to the PJ, and the lack of attention that the investigation gave to this period.

Even Goncalo Amaral concluded that May 3rd was the date to look at, he was swayed by the evidence of 3 members of the Smith Family, but was this a deliberate distraction?  Had we all been fooled?

I hope that this is a topic that we can discuss here as I know that quite a few members have done some great research in this area and all have come to the same conclusion.

Many of you believe for one reason or another that Madeleine disappeared on May 3rd 2007.  Please ask your questions here, I am confident that we can now answer them.

Sharon, what Moita Flores documentary? Can you post a link please?

Lizzy is discussing this topic on HDH Controversy:

SIMPLE QUESTION...

1) Did Maddie disappear because she was left alone and therefore given the opportunity for an abductor to take her (neglect)

2) Did Maddie disappear because she had died and the parents hid her body and simulated an abduction? (crime)


Lizzy Hideho Taylor

This is not about how Madeleine may have died, its about how she was removed from the apartment. ie disappeared. Being left alone (neglect) would have meant she would have still been in the apartment....that is not how she disappeared.

SUMMARY: To believe Madeleine was removed from the apartment because of neglect (ie left alone) then this scenario supports the abduction.

For those that don't believe something happened until Thursday then neglect could have happened or been the reason she died ...but it has nothing to do with how she disappeared.

HOW DID MADELEINE DISAPPEAR is the topic of this thread

--------------
I will not be popular for posting this but it is what I have firmly believed for more than 8 years and I feel its time we focused on what REALLY HAPPENED and be angry with them for hiding their daughter's body and simulating the abduction....and not making neglect the main issue...

I have been posting about not believing the McCanns neglected their children on May 3rd for 8 years... Since before Feb 2008 and I have NEVER changed my mind... WHY? Because how could there be neglect if Maddie was already dead? NEGLECT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MADDIE'S DISAPPEARANCE UNLESS YOU BELIEVE SHE WAS ABDUCTED.

Its been a SMOKESCREEN to hide the truth. Its the ONLY 'negative' press that they have allowed because it's a preferable trade-off to the TRUTH!

Without question, the MAIN issue that most people have with the McCanns is that they neglected their children and left them alone. It appears that to justify anger towards the McCanns one HAS to 'hate' them for neglecting their children. If one thinks about it actually suggests that Maddie disappeared because they were left alone (ie abducted)!

I have always disagreed with those that accuse them of not caring about their children... I believe they did love and care for their children...but SOMETHING HAPPENED. Something that was so very important to hide....and it wasn't neglect....It was something MUCH MORE IMPORTANT!

According to what the files 'tell' me, something happened earlier in the week and the COVER UP is what has led to all the suggestions of neglect. The time for grieving, the distancing from the other friends, the twins being looked after at the creche and several other accusations MAY be explained because of this...

For those that firmly believe in neglect MAYBE it is the reason Maddie died but its NOT why she disappeared. That is FAR MORE SINISTER. With the information in the files that lead to Madeleine dying in the apartment and the parents faking the abduction, why focus on something that had nothing to do with her disappearance when what really happened is horrific!

IT'S TIME THE ANGER TOWARDS THEM FOCUSES ON THE REASON MADDIE DISAPPEARED!
--------------------------------------------------

COPY of 3A post

Sent: 4/17/2008 9:39 AM

May 3rd-Not a 'night out'-No neglect-Negative PR has worked!

HiDeHo
I understand if some people dont give credibility to the dogs findings then May 3 was a night out (of little over an hour) and Maddie was still alive and she could have been abducted...

For those that do believe the dogs......the McCanns were aware of Maddie's death before they went out because of the 2 hours needed for the death scent to be released.

So.... is there a reason that it is considered a 'night out' when it appears to be a little over an hour?....

With the knowledge of her death it would have had to have been used for preparation to create the 'abduction'.
Neglect issues are very possibly non existant for that night...there is no knowledge as to whether the twins were left alone...Someone could have been in the apartment for that hour...

(Whether there is enough evidence for neglect on other nights is a separate issue)

Why is May 3 still considered a 'neglect' issue and a 'night out' to those that believe that Maddie was already dead?

(You wonder why they cannot take responsibility and admit to 'neglect' leading to Maddies disapparance?...It's because it didn't happen!..She was maybe already dead!)

The McCanns 'negative' PR allowing the 'trade-off' neglect accusations, really does seem to have worked! :?
IMO



https://www.facebook.com/groups/HiDeHoCONTROVERSYofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/567376816752145/?__mref=message

hogwash wrote:Sharon, what Moita Flores documentary? Can you post a link please?

I don't know if this is the documentary Sharon refers to, but here's part of a transcript from Pamalam's site:

Moita Flores says: It is more likely that the child died. And he adds it is impossible that someone passed through the window with a child. He says the abduction theory then doesn't make sense. He observes that there are many possibilities, it's perfectly admissible for instance that the child went out to search for her parents. If the child died, it could have been outside of the flat or in the flat. But, he says, the disappearance never could have happened through the window, he insists that it is essential to understand that it is technically, humanly, impossible. The witness concludes affirming that all the hypotheses are possible, except for the abduction "through that window".

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Francisco_Flores_08_10_2013.htm

Hopefully Sharon will post the link to the documentary she refers to if it's not this one.

Have voted for the 28/29th due to the cavalry being sent for, albeit perhaps not in possession of the full facts. Establishing the true reason for this quickly arranged trip is fundamental to establishing the correct date.

Many people would have been influenced into genuinely thinking they had seen MBM. Their sympathy for the couple would make them vulnerable to such suggestion.

IMO

Why should we believe the McC's date of disappearance?
So many changes in statements they have made over years yet the 3rd May 2007 we are supposed to believe without question.
If they can lie about anything concerning the 'disappearance' of their own child...remember Gerry said confusion was good,...that could harm a genuine search, why would they give us the correct day she really 'disappeared' ????

Far better to give a later date to give them time.

I think it's a combination of the 3rd and 4th choices. Some witnesses were fooled, others deliberately lied about seeing her that week and the day of May 3rd. I think Mrs. Fenn may have been coerced as an 'ear' witness.

I also believe the April 30 CEOP page ties in with other evidence being brought forward indicating an earlier incident. As I opined numerous times during the CEOP controversy, I believe CEOP, TM crony specifically, pulled the trigger too early on the 'Missing' webpage. [another indicator of 'official' involvement in the coverup] When it was determined more time was needed for evidence erasure and abduction staging it was just as quickly put it back behind the curtain--but not before wbm crawled it. In other words, I believe they were about to falsely cry 'kidnapped!' the day of or the day after the actual incident, with help and support from CEOP, but decided to give themselves more time to clean up, others needed to get out of town, while still others needed to get their stories straight and come up with a plan of action.

It looks like we can never be certain about much to do with the disappearance of MBM, so much we can go into, yet never get it quite right.  I don't think there is much chance of us getting to the real answers of what was going on and which day.  Been so much looking and thinking, it just doesn't make sense really.  I hope one day something will occur to bring an ending to this sadness.  joyce1938

@whodunit yes I agree with you, some will know, and some will be influenced. I mainly chose option 3 for the date, which is the topic of the thread. If RM was not 'summoned', then it could be either 3 or 4.

Taking the hypothesis of an 'incident' on the evening of the 3rd, @sharonl's 'to do list' alone demonstrates very well how unlikely/impossible this is. Even GM, with his control and influence, would need time to drive home why and how things were to be played out in the days ahead. Thankfully though, he had Lances book for inspiration, and of course he could always call on a few friends with the correct handshake.

IMO

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

hogwash wrote:Sharon, what Moita Flores documentary? Can you post a link please?

I don't know if this is the documentary Sharon refers to, but here's part of a transcript from Pamalam's site:

Moita Flores says: It is more likely that the child died. And he adds it is impossible that someone passed through the window with a child. He says the abduction theory then doesn't make sense. He observes that there are many possibilities, it's perfectly admissible for instance that the child went out to search for her parents. If the child died, it could have been outside of the flat or in the flat. But, he says, the disappearance never could have happened through the window, he insists that it is essential to understand that it is technically, humanly, impossible. The witness concludes affirming that all the hypotheses are possible, except for the abduction "through that window".

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Francisco_Flores_08_10_2013.htm

Hopefully Sharon will post the link to the documentary she refers to if it's not this one.

Thank you Get'em - I think that is the right one.  I am looking for a link but the actual documentary may not be available, if not I am sure that there is a full transcript somewhere.

In the film, MF shows that it was impossible for someone to have passed through the window which, IIRC, only opened on the one side making it very narrow, and also had a 3ft drop on the outside.

He also should how the door lock could only be operated from inside the apartment and that when shut,  the door would always appear locked from the outside, needing a key to enter.

I am unable to vote as there is not an above option for those of us who are of the opinion Maddie died on 3rd, and her body was hidden that evening.

pennylane wrote:I am unable to vote as there is not an above option for those of us who are of the opinion Maddie died on 3rd, and her body was hidden that evening.

Isn't Option 1 good enough?

Question:

On the 3rd May, how busy was MW resort ?

At the time of holiday, there is evidence to suggest that MW resort was at full occupancy, with a full compliment of staff, despite being at low season (the reason for this is a different debate and off topic of this thread). We presume occupancy peaked at some point during the week, but how many remained on the 3rd ?

Did people start leaving earlier than planned ? Did some guests have a 'bad feeling' about something ? It may be a further indicator of timing.

IMO

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:

pennylane wrote:I am unable to vote as there is not an above option for those of us who are of the opinion Maddie died on 3rd, and her body was hidden that evening.

Isn't Option 1 good enough?

No way GGS!  Option one states Maddie vanished whilst her parents ate at the local tapas bar.  

That's an "emphatic no" as I believe they were involved!

pennylane wrote:

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:

pennylane wrote:I am unable to vote as there is not an above option for those of us who are of the opinion Maddie died on 3rd, and her body was hidden that evening.

Isn't Option 1 good enough?

No way GGS!  Option one states Maddie vanished whilst her parents ate at the local tapas bar.  

That's an "emphatic no" as I believe they were involved!

What about option 2 - Madeleine disappeared earlier on May 3rd (before the Tapas meal), surely that implicates the parents?

sharonl wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:

pennylane wrote:I am unable to vote as there is not an above option for those of us who are of the opinion Maddie died on 3rd, and her body was hidden that evening.

Isn't Option 1 good enough?

No way GGS!  Option one states Maddie vanished whilst her parents ate at the local tapas bar.  

That's an "emphatic no" as I believe they were involved!

What about option 2 - Madeleine disappeared earlier on May 3rd (before the Tapas meal), surely that implicates the parents?

Good morning sharon

Option 2 doesn't work for me either, as I believe M was found missing during their dinner and not earlier (around 9:20-ish), when they were first heard calling her name by independent witnesses.  After creating commotion and attention to themselves, one of them found her body (possibly behind the sofa) (imo), and she was moved to a temporary location due to having been sedated/neglected.  I believe she was moved again later in the blue sports bag.

I'm of the opinion the children were put to bed earlier than indicated, and all their timings are bogus.

As I mentioned before, I believe something else dodgy was going on that week, and this is the reason there are phone deletions and lies about certain days, and this is the crucial missing piece of the puzzle. Discarding many witnesses, and relating every lie to M's demise is a big mistake, but that's just my very humble opinion. 

The enormous research that has been painstakingly recorded and collated all these years by many dedicated and hard working people here and elsewhere, remains valuable and necessary, and I believe much of it plays an essential, integral part in the overall big picture! 

Thank you for listening xxx

I am one of those who goes with 3rd May being the key date. I accept the key weakness for my view is that it leaves very little time to discover MBM, concoct a plan, act 'normally' while upset and put things into action. But something being very difficult doesn't make it impossible.

I also accept there is an argument to be made for *something* happening earlier in the week. The flight from Exeter and the simultaneous mobile phone switching on/off are particularly suspicious IMO.  But, if what happened on 3rd May was planned, then something must have gone awry. There was too much panic and confusion.  I can't believe either that you would actually want that many witnesses if you were planning to hide a body. I think more people were roped in, wittingly or otherwise, on 3rd May itself because of an unplanned "disaster".

If I was planning something bad, I'd want as few people to know as possible. Even if I needed false witnesses to place me elsewhere, provide an alibi etc. I'd keep the number very small. The more people you bring into a scheme the more likely someone will grass, crack under pressure or simply not play their part very well.

A key event for me is DP's alleged visit at about 6:30pm on the 3rd. Did it happen? If it did, whose version is correct? And did he actually see MBM?  If the visit didn't happen at all, then why did it need to be created?

All just my "tuppence worth".

Columbo wrote:I am one of those who goes with 3rd May being the key date. I accept the key weakness for my view is that it leaves very little time to discover MBM, concoct a plan, act 'normally' while upset and put things into action. But something being very difficult doesn't make it impossible.

I also accept there is an argument to be made for *something* happening earlier in the week. The flight from Exeter and the simultaneous mobile phone switching on/off are particularly suspicious IMO.  But, if what happened on 3rd May was planned, then something must have gone awry. There was too much panic and confusion.  I can't believe either that you would actually want that many witnesses if you were planning to hide a body. I think more people were roped in, wittingly or otherwise, on 3rd May itself because of an unplanned "disaster".

If I was planning something bad, I'd want as few people to know as possible. Even if I needed false witnesses to place me elsewhere, provide an alibi etc. I'd keep the number very small. The more people you bring into a scheme the more likely someone will grass, crack under pressure or simply not play their part very well.

A key event for me is DP's alleged visit at about 6:30pm on the 3rd. Did it happen? If it did, whose version is correct? And did he actually see MBM?  If the visit didn't happen at all, then why did it need to be created?

All just my "tuppence worth".

Good morning Columbo, Welcome!

I think we are on the same page re M meeting her demise on 3rd, and a lot of people being unwittingly roped in. I agree you would keep such a crime very close to your chest. I also agree there was very little time to concoct a plan, but (imo) they had already been seen and heard looking for Madeleine, and as the catastrophe unfolded they did not have the luxury of time, or a vehicle on their side. Also perhaps in arrogance, believed as British doctors with important connections, they'd be revered and taken completely at their word.  But the police were rapidly onto them as their story fell apart immediately.  All of it that is, because (imo) it was not pre-planned but back fitted.  Heck, they couldn't even get their checking times straight!


The blue sports bag and blanket still being there on 3rd, and then whooshed and denied existence, is an additional sign events were leading them, rather than the other way around.  

Re DP, I think perhaps he did visit, but the children were already in bed very early and the truth would have been ultra damaging to the 'happy family scenario.'  Possibly?   Just my "tuppence worth" too!

I have given some thought to that visit ,and it has passed my mind _____ did maddie witness something  she should have not  ,and an accident happened because of the fuss that may have occurred .joyce1938

joyce1938 wrote:I have given some thought to that visit ,and it has passed my mind _____ did maddie witness something  she should have not  ,and an accident happened because of the fuss that may have occurred .joyce1938

If I read you right.... I can't envisage that would be a choice for a way out, unless rage resulted in catastrophe. I get the impression when they first went to dinner they were relaxed, and then something bad happened!  But I suppose there's always the possibility of an earlier injury. 

I personally believe sedatives were the c.o.d, and I've believed thus since the early days.  Clarence Mitchell has done much to preoccupy the public and press, and take the focus to the farthest corners of the world, but (imo) those early original damaging headlines came the closest to the truth of what happened on that ill fated holiday.

Hi pennylane ,thanks for your reply .yes you may be right on this,i just hope one day we shall get to sometruths  in this case, A lot of the time we are just going on guesswork I think . will look back at early things , joyce1938

joyce1938 wrote:Hi pennylane ,thanks for your reply .yes you may be right on this,i just hope one day we shall get to sometruths  in this case, A lot of the time we are just going on guesswork I think . will look back at early things , joyce1938

Hi joyce, I always enjoy reading your insightful posts! 
Thank you for your reply too x

Hi Pennylane. Your theory along with a couple of others has a good 'fit' and could well be right. My only doubts are that in order for the possibility of Madeleine waking and wandering the McCanns would have had to have left the patio doors open ( unlocked ) whilst they were away at dinner. I just can't see that happening. I know there was THAT conversation ..................allegedly.........................between Fiona and Kate regarding the patio doors but why, after Kate had presumably left them open all the previous days, would this conversation suddenly take place?

kaz wrote:Hi Pennylane. Your theory along with a couple of others has a good 'fit' and could well be right. My only doubts are that in order for the possibility of Madeleine waking and wandering the McCanns would have had to have left the patio doors open ( unlocked ) whilst they were away at dinner. I just can't see that happening. I know there was THAT conversation ..................allegedly.........................between Fiona and Kate regarding the patio doors but why, after Kate had presumably left them open all the previous days, would this conversation suddenly take place?

Hi kaz,

Mrs Fenn heard the patio doors opened on the 1st, so I think they were used as access from the bar. Re the alleged conversation between F and K, perhaps that was a lame attempt to explain away their dangerous action of leaving 3 toddlers in an unsecured apartment, i.e. 'in case of a fire.'

I still have a problem with the idea of hearing a patio door opening ABOVE the noise of a child crying frantically. I do wonder if Mrs Fenn heard it after the crying stopped...as someone was leaving?