McCanns Easter break Donegal 2007

Jean wrote:Ah yes Fiona and GREGOR but they live in Glasgow not Donegal. It would be interesting to see the unclipped photo if that's ever been published.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Ribisl wrote:I agree with you Moa. I don't see anything wrong with her hand or with this picture as a whole.
Btw did you read some posts pointing out that your avatar shows young Kate and not Madeleine?

Naughty naughty, Ribisl. Obviously you have read them so surely your claim above should be 'BTW, did you seen some posts that believe your avatar picture to be Kate, not Madeleine'?
I know the posts you are referring to seeing as they are mine and tigger's. Nowhere did I state it WAS Kate. My post was clear enough about how I noticed it first etc etc. Its not fair to misrepresent our posts like that.
To recap, yes, even now when looking at the t-shirt picture of K+G and Moa's avatar I see a massive similarity. I spent much time zooming in on the pictures, every time I saw Moa post it was niggling at me, that mouth, teeth, cheeks, jaw...
Of course I'm probably waaay off the mark but I stand by what I see.
I assume you don't think so, Ribisl?

Ribisl wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Ribisl wrote:I agree with you Moa. I don't see anything wrong with her hand or with this picture as a whole.
Btw did you read some posts pointing out that your avatar shows young Kate and not Madeleine?

Naughty naughty, Ribisl. Obviously you have read them so surely your claim above should be 'BTW, did you seen some posts that believe your avatar picture to be Kate, not Madeleine'?
I know the posts you are referring to seeing as they are mine and tigger's. Nowhere did I state it WAS Kate. My post was clear enough about how I noticed it first etc etc. Its not fair to misrepresent our posts like that.
To recap, yes, even now when looking at the t-shirt picture of K+G and Moa's avatar I see a massive similarity. I spent much time zooming in on the pictures, every time I saw Moa post it was niggling at me, that mouth, teeth, cheeks, jaw...
Of course I'm probably waaay off the mark but I stand by what I see.
I assume you don't think so, Ribisl?

I said what I said rainbow-fairy because I actually agreed with you and tigger. But now I have seen the picture Moa's posted (the top one) I am not so sure any more. And I see Look4Maddy has posted the avatar picture with her name across it which seems to suggest it's one of the 'official' photos of Madeleine released by the Mcs (not that proves anything). I did ask Look4Maddy earlier why she thought there were so few pictures from Portugal given her connection with the Mcs, but so far I haven't read her reply.

tigger wrote:To avoid endless posts of the same photographs:

Thanks to Moa and Look4Maddy:

Avatar: absolutely not Maddie, teeth alone prove that. No gaps except one in the front.

Ice cream photograph, when it's full size - (thank you L4M) high resolution, it only strengthens my opinion:
1. non participation in action.
2. with this high resolution I can see a couple of 'fold' lines under Maddie's left ear which have no business being there, this would make sense if the neck didn't belong to the face and the original face was bent forwards. Which would make sense with eating ice-cream. The ice cream she's holding should have collapsed at the point, impossible to hold it like that for even a second.
3. with the twins, definitely Maddie. I expect someone grinned at her just like that and she imitated it.
4. pale blue pyjamas, Maddie, coloboma pasted in close to 6 o'clock
5 . not at all sure about this one, may well be face pasted on, reason is the rather knuckled hand holding the scarf, looks too old.
coloboma shopped in at 7 o'clock. Face heavily bleached out, no eye bags. Probably Maddie.

Ribisl wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Ribisl wrote:I agree with you Moa. I don't see anything wrong with her hand or with this picture as a whole.
Btw did you read some posts pointing out that your avatar shows young Kate and not Madeleine?

Naughty naughty, Ribisl. Obviously you have read them so surely your claim above should be 'BTW, did you seen some posts that believe your avatar picture to be Kate, not Madeleine'?
I know the posts you are referring to seeing as they are mine and tigger's. Nowhere did I state it WAS Kate. My post was clear enough about how I noticed it first etc etc. Its not fair to misrepresent our posts like that.
To recap, yes, even now when looking at the t-shirt picture of K+G and Moa's avatar I see a massive similarity. I spent much time zooming in on the pictures, every time I saw Moa post it was niggling at me, that mouth, teeth, cheeks, jaw...
Of course I'm probably waaay off the mark but I stand by what I see.
I assume you don't think so, Ribisl?

I said what I said rainbow-fairy because I actually agreed with you and tigger. But now I have seen the picture Moa's posted (the top one) I am not so sure any more. And I see Look4Maddy has posted the avatar picture with her name across it which seems to suggest it's one of the 'official' photos of Madeleine released by the Mcs (not that proves anything). I did ask Look4Maddy earlier why she thought there were so few pictures from Portugal given her connection with the Mcs, but so far I haven't read her reply.

Jean wrote:

Gillyspot wrote:

Lance De Boils wrote:To be clear, I did not say I thought it actually was a prosthetic arm. I simply threw in a suggestion. To me, the hand and wrist area look very wrong. I have no idea why it should be that way - just that something appears to be wrong. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Oh hello to the latest pro McCann troll to venture here. I hope you aren't trying to cause any trouble.

Lance Boyle @BoyleLance
@JillyCL @DodgyDrPayne Mmmm you must definitely be the black sheep then BAAAAAAAAAA pmsl Bring back fantasy islnd is all I can say #mccann

Oh dear - I did wonder about him with an earlier posting with some dodgy information on a member of Team McCann. In view of his avatar he seems to have been trying to make a monkey of us all!

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:To avoid endless posts of the same photographs:

Thanks to Moa and Look4Maddy:

Avatar: absolutely not Maddie, teeth alone prove that. No gaps except one in the front.

Ice cream photograph, when it's full size - (thank you L4M) high resolution, it only strengthens my opinion:
1. non participation in action.
2. with this high resolution I can see a couple of 'fold' lines under Maddie's left ear which have no business being there, this would make sense if the neck didn't belong to the face and the original face was bent forwards. Which would make sense with eating ice-cream. The ice cream she's holding should have collapsed at the point, impossible to hold it like that for even a second.
3. with the twins, definitely Maddie. I expect someone grinned at her just like that and she imitated it.
4. pale blue pyjamas, Maddie, coloboma pasted in close to 6 o'clock
5 . not at all sure about this one, may well be face pasted on, reason is the rather knuckled hand holding the scarf, looks too old.
coloboma shopped in at 7 o'clock. Face heavily bleached out, no eye bags. Probably Maddie.

And to avoid that we should take your oppinion as the truth then ? After all this is just your oppinions Tigger... If thats what you meant about avoid endless post about the pictures? Or did you mean not having the pictures in the post.. I might have misunderstood you

tigger wrote:

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:To avoid endless posts of the same photographs:

Thanks to Moa and Look4Maddy:

Avatar: absolutely not Maddie, teeth alone prove that. No gaps except one in the front.

Ice cream photograph, when it's full size - (thank you L4M) high resolution, it only strengthens my opinion:
1. non participation in action.
2. with this high resolution I can see a couple of 'fold' lines under Maddie's left ear which have no business being there, this would make sense if the neck didn't belong to the face and the original face was bent forwards. Which would make sense with eating ice-cream. The ice cream she's holding should have collapsed at the point, impossible to hold it like that for even a second.
3. with the twins, definitely Maddie. I expect someone grinned at her just like that and she imitated it.
4. pale blue pyjamas, Maddie, coloboma pasted in close to 6 o'clock
5 . not at all sure about this one, may well be face pasted on, reason is the rather knuckled hand holding the scarf, looks too old.
coloboma shopped in at 7 o'clock. Face heavily bleached out, no eye bags. Probably Maddie.

And to avoid that we should take your oppinion as the truth then ? After all this is just your oppinions Tigger... If thats what you meant about avoid endless post about the pictures? Or did you mean not having the pictures in the post.. I might have misunderstood you

Exactly that Moa, to avoid making the topic very long with repeats of pictures. I just quickly listed my take on them. L4M does post very high resolution pictures - I was pointing out what else I could see.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Maddie's hands, but it is funny that in both the rock photo and the scarf photo her hand looks too 'old' . Toddlers have plump little hands, not with big knuckles.
One reason I doubt the Donegal pictures is that they were available so soon, nothing about the story connected seems to be true - the 29 to 47 members at the reunion - the weather,the actual close ties, the fact that Kate herself states in the bewk that it was their first visit and most of all, because the relative proportions of the children are wrong. Maddie is almost the same size as Sean - so if it was a smallish 3 yr old, and the poster photo is of a small 'compact' girl - I'm just wondering if that girl was the sub.
Although someone spotted Amelie's jacket hanging in 5a on one photo, I've never seen that pretty dress that 'Maddie' wears there in any other snap. Neither has Kate mentioned this dress.

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:

Moa wrote:

tigger wrote:To avoid endless posts of the same photographs:

Thanks to Moa and Look4Maddy:

Avatar: absolutely not Maddie, teeth alone prove that. No gaps except one in the front.

Ice cream photograph, when it's full size - (thank you L4M) high resolution, it only strengthens my opinion:
1. non participation in action.
2. with this high resolution I can see a couple of 'fold' lines under Maddie's left ear which have no business being there, this would make sense if the neck didn't belong to the face and the original face was bent forwards. Which would make sense with eating ice-cream. The ice cream she's holding should have collapsed at the point, impossible to hold it like that for even a second.
3. with the twins, definitely Maddie. I expect someone grinned at her just like that and she imitated it.
4. pale blue pyjamas, Maddie, coloboma pasted in close to 6 o'clock
5 . not at all sure about this one, may well be face pasted on, reason is the rather knuckled hand holding the scarf, looks too old.
coloboma shopped in at 7 o'clock. Face heavily bleached out, no eye bags. Probably Maddie.

And to avoid that we should take your oppinion as the truth then ? After all this is just your oppinions Tigger... If thats what you meant about avoid endless post about the pictures? Or did you mean not having the pictures in the post.. I might have misunderstood you [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Exactly that Moa, to avoid making the topic very long with repeats of pictures. I just quickly listed my take on them. L4M does post very high resolution pictures - I was pointing out what else I could see.
I don't think there's anything wrong with Maddie's hands, but it is funny that in both the rock photo and the scarf photo her hand looks too 'old' . Toddlers have plump little hands, not with big knuckles.
One reason I doubt the Donegal pictures is that they were available so soon, nothing about the story connected seems to be true - the 29 to 47 members at the reunion - the weather,the actual close ties, the fact that Kate herself states in the bewk that it was their first visit and most of all, because the relative proportions of the children are wrong. Maddie is almost the same size as Sean - so if it was a smallish 3 yr old, and the poster photo is of a small 'compact' girl - I'm just wondering if that girl was the sub.
Although someone spotted Amelie's jacket hanging in 5a on one photo, I've never seen that pretty dress that 'Maddie' wears there in any other snap. Neither has Kate mentioned this dress.

Than im sorry for taking it the wrong way at first thought [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] ..Always having the defending clows out lol ! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I do find things odd, there are pictures im finding odd, like the make up pic, but I truly do not believe that they manipulated pictures years back..I see no reason for doing so..I believe the PDL pictures could have been tampered with..

On the other side, I do find it most odd that K said in the cowell? interview that they never made a big thing out of the bearly visible FLECK in her eye,and that they also now where sure it was not colomba!! When their entire campaign was based on exacly that FLECK. Why ? Maybe it is true and they just at the time, to gain publicity, over dramatised that fleck? Or are they lying about the fleck, and it never was there? If that is the case,. I guess a lot of people who has met Madeleine would react on that if she acually didnt have it..

So many answers to manipulated pictures, involves again a lot of people in the knowing.And I do not believe that all those people , not one would say
something?

I know the truth hasn't been told in this case, I strongly believe K+G knows what happened.. But I do find it hard to truly find a good reason for manipulating all those pictures, and lie about the fleck in her eye, other than making the fleck into a colomba, as a good marketing ploy...That also means IMO they knew she was already "gone", so if the information going out in the public wasnt accurate it didnt matter, because she was nowhere to be found anyway..Can also explain why they gave the wrong hight, old picture so on.. Maybe thats why it took so long to publish the "last" photo, because that would be the hardest one to look at if she accidently died...Maybe thats why they chose a less prettier,younger picture of her the first weeks ?

I don't know, there are many things pointing in many direction, most direction just stops at one point for my part,it gets to complicated.. I believe in a less complicated scenario.. I do not believe it was preplanned, unsure about the sub, that could be if she died earlier in the vacation..But im not leaning on that theory either...

I believe she died , by accident, on that holliday. How, when and where, is what im hoping to one day get the answers to....

tigger wrote:Hi Moa, you're entirely entitled to your point of view. In the beginning I tried everything to get rid of planning - there's simply to much real and circumstantial evidence.
Yes, they knew she was dead and they created a myth of a happy little beautiful girl.
Just one more thing on the photographs - look at the Everton shirt - not the very blond girl, but Maddie. The more you blow it up, the more the head 'floats' in front, it's too far to her left, simply impossible. That one was analyzed by an expert who also said it was a sloppy cut and paste job.

russiandoll wrote:I too try to avoid premeditation, because it leads down a very nasty road.
What I can't fit into the accidental death theory is the marketing, branding, the fund and the 5 year long lie about an abduction.
Why they didnt just keep quiet and let the dust settle and it all fizzle out of the public eye is beyond me. They invite ongoing speculation and analysis.

russiandoll wrote:I too try to avoid premeditation, because it leads down a very nasty road.
What I can't fit into the accidental death theory is the marketing, branding, the fund and the 5 year long lie about an abduction.
Why they didnt just keep quiet and let the dust settle and it all fizzle out of the public eye is beyond me. They invite ongoing speculation and analysis.

rainbow-fairy wrote:Sorry, the 'accident, cover-up and snowball effect' just does not work for me. Far too much was in place far too quickly, imo.
The 'Look' campaign, emphasis on the (non-existent?) coloboma, the 'Find Maddie Fund' - the lie that by 11 pm that night, reports were emerging of PT police 'doing nothing'. I don't believe the idea for the campaign came to Gerry in an instant in church, I think it'd been worked out long before then. Most telling for me was Gerry' comment 'I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleines abduction long-term' (mind boggling).
I err towards pre-meditation also because of the personalities involved. Gerry is a control freak and we've seen his reactions to unexpected events - the dogs searching the new villa and the hire car were a real curve-ball, and knocked him for six. Remember the description of him sobbing on the floor of the police station "We're finished, our lives are over"? I don't believe he'dve held it together with an accidental death. Far more likely to cope better with pre-meditation, just my opinion...
I know it sounds harsh, but people do plan and execute such things. I get the feeling the bond was weak with Madeleine. I even get the impression the McCanns wanted two children only. Maddie was definitely, to some degree a 'separate entity'. I think it was a Dr Martin Roberts analysis where K+G were asked about memories of Madeleine, the reply from G was 'You know, just her in the playroom, playing with her, with her, with... the twins'. Why not 'Her brother and sister' or 'Her siblings'. He was strongly resisting saying something. Why. And what was it?
The sheer speed at which the Fund was set up, and the fact they were concentrating on that as opposed to searching for their daughter... It all points firmly away from accident, imo (and I don't WANT to believe they were cold-blooded enough to plan it all) - I just don't see evidence of 'on the hoof' reactionary actions. I see a plan that (more or less) ran properly... Were the other Tapas in on it? I'm not so sure on that one...

Moa wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Sorry, the 'accident, cover-up and snowball effect' just does not work for me. Far too much was in place far too quickly, imo.
The 'Look' campaign, emphasis on the (non-existent?) coloboma, the 'Find Maddie Fund' - the lie that by 11 pm that night, reports were emerging of PT police 'doing nothing'. I don't believe the idea for the campaign came to Gerry in an instant in church, I think it'd been worked out long before then. Most telling for me was Gerry' comment 'I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleines abduction long-term' (mind boggling).
I err towards pre-meditation also because of the personalities involved. Gerry is a control freak and we've seen his reactions to unexpected events - the dogs searching the new villa and the hire car were a real curve-ball, and knocked him for six. Remember the description of him sobbing on the floor of the police station "We're finished, our lives are over"? I don't believe he'dve held it together with an accidental death. Far more likely to cope better with pre-meditation, just my opinion...
I know it sounds harsh, but people do plan and execute such things. I get the feeling the bond was weak with Madeleine. I even get the impression the McCanns wanted two children only. Maddie was definitely, to some degree a 'separate entity'. I think it was a Dr Martin Roberts analysis where K+G were asked about memories of Madeleine, the reply from G was 'You know, just her in the playroom, playing with her, with her, with... the twins'. Why not 'Her brother and sister' or 'Her siblings'. He was strongly resisting saying something. Why. And what was it?
The sheer speed at which the Fund was set up, and the fact they were concentrating on that as opposed to searching for their daughter... It all points firmly away from accident, imo (and I don't WANT to believe they were cold-blooded enough to plan it all) - I just don't see evidence of 'on the hoof' reactionary actions. I see a plan that (more or less) ran properly... Were the other Tapas in on it? I'm not so sure on that one...

I do not believe that...I think all those things could easily apply for an accidental death with a snowball effect..All the things they've said and done I also believe can be related to accidental death.. I dont think she was a hated kid and that they wanted two children only.. I do believe they feel som guilt towards the twins for "losing" their sister, and believe thats why G is so resisting when speaking about it all...
I don't see strong evidence for a pre plan like you are discribing, and I've been down that round, but at one point turned around since the road looked like a dead end to me....

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Moa wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Sorry, the 'accident, cover-up and snowball effect' just does not work for me. Far too much was in place far too quickly, imo.
The 'Look' campaign, emphasis on the (non-existent?) coloboma, the 'Find Maddie Fund' - the lie that by 11 pm that night, reports were emerging of PT police 'doing nothing'. I don't believe the idea for the campaign came to Gerry in an instant in church, I think it'd been worked out long before then. Most telling for me was Gerry' comment 'I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleines abduction long-term' (mind boggling).
I err towards pre-meditation also because of the personalities involved. Gerry is a control freak and we've seen his reactions to unexpected events - the dogs searching the new villa and the hire car were a real curve-ball, and knocked him for six. Remember the description of him sobbing on the floor of the police station "We're finished, our lives are over"? I don't believe he'dve held it together with an accidental death. Far more likely to cope better with pre-meditation, just my opinion...
I know it sounds harsh, but people do plan and execute such things. I get the feeling the bond was weak with Madeleine. I even get the impression the McCanns wanted two children only. Maddie was definitely, to some degree a 'separate entity'. I think it was a Dr Martin Roberts analysis where K+G were asked about memories of Madeleine, the reply from G was 'You know, just her in the playroom, playing with her, with her, with... the twins'. Why not 'Her brother and sister' or 'Her siblings'. He was strongly resisting saying something. Why. And what was it?
The sheer speed at which the Fund was set up, and the fact they were concentrating on that as opposed to searching for their daughter... It all points firmly away from accident, imo (and I don't WANT to believe they were cold-blooded enough to plan it all) - I just don't see evidence of 'on the hoof' reactionary actions. I see a plan that (more or less) ran properly... Were the other Tapas in on it? I'm not so sure on that one...

I do not believe that...I think all those things could easily apply for an accidental death with a snowball effect..All the things they've said and done I also believe can be related to accidental death.. I dont think she was a hated kid and that they wanted two children only.. I do believe they feel som guilt towards the twins for "losing" their sister, and believe thats why G is so resisting when speaking about it all...
I don't see strong evidence for a pre plan like you are discribing, and I've been down that round, but at one point turned around since the road looked like a dead end to me....

We don't have to agree Moa! We'd never learn if everyone agreed!
I have been down the accident road - maybe not a dead end so much as a cul-de-sac - and it raises more questions than it answers.
Pre-planned is pretty similar. It may sound bizarre but there is a third option (and possibly most likely); a bit of both. Planned AND accident - it is certainly possible. If not 'planned' per se, something that had been considered as a possible happening. Wasn't it David Payne (please someone correct me if I'm wrong) who said along the lines of "We were all waiting for something to happen, but never in our wildest dreams think it would be that"?!? What an odd thing to say...

I have no problem with you disagreeing Moa. However, I do take exception to being misquoted - where did I state or infer Madeleine was a 'hated kid'? I said something very different.

Moa wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Moa wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:Sorry, the 'accident, cover-up and snowball effect' just does not work for me. Far too much was in place far too quickly, imo.
The 'Look' campaign, emphasis on the (non-existent?) coloboma, the 'Find Maddie Fund' - the lie that by 11 pm that night, reports were emerging of PT police 'doing nothing'. I don't believe the idea for the campaign came to Gerry in an instant in church, I think it'd been worked out long before then. Most telling for me was Gerry' comment 'I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleines abduction long-term' (mind boggling).
I err towards pre-meditation also because of the personalities involved. Gerry is a control freak and we've seen his reactions to unexpected events - the dogs searching the new villa and the hire car were a real curve-ball, and knocked him for six. Remember the description of him sobbing on the floor of the police station "We're finished, our lives are over"? I don't believe he'dve held it together with an accidental death. Far more likely to cope better with pre-meditation, just my opinion...
I know it sounds harsh, but people do plan and execute such things. I get the feeling the bond was weak with Madeleine. I even get the impression the McCanns wanted two children only. Maddie was definitely, to some degree a 'separate entity'. I think it was a Dr Martin Roberts analysis where K+G were asked about memories of Madeleine, the reply from G was 'You know, just her in the playroom, playing with her, with her, with... the twins'. Why not 'Her brother and sister' or 'Her siblings'. He was strongly resisting saying something. Why. And what was it?
The sheer speed at which the Fund was set up, and the fact they were concentrating on that as opposed to searching for their daughter... It all points firmly away from accident, imo (and I don't WANT to believe they were cold-blooded enough to plan it all) - I just don't see evidence of 'on the hoof' reactionary actions. I see a plan that (more or less) ran properly... Were the other Tapas in on it? I'm not so sure on that one...

I do not believe that...I think all those things could easily apply for an accidental death with a snowball effect..All the things they've said and done I also believe can be related to accidental death.. I don't think she was a hated kid and that they wanted two children only.. I do believe they feel som guilt towards the twins for "losing" their sister, and believe thats why G is so resisting when speaking about it all...
I don't see strong evidence for a pre plan like you are discribing, and I've been down that round, but at one point turned around since the road looked like a dead end to me....

We don't have to agree Moa! We'd never learn if everyone agreed!
I have been down the accident road - maybe not a dead end so much as a cul-de-sac - and it raises more questions than it answers.
Pre-planned is pretty similar. It may sound bizarre but there is a third option (and possibly most likely); a bit of both. Planned AND accident - it is certainly possible. If not 'planned' per se, something that had been considered as a possible happening. Wasn't it David Payne (please someone correct me if I'm wrong) who said along the lines of "We were all waiting for something to happen, but never in our wildest dreams think it would be that"?!? What an odd thing to say...

I have no problem with you disagreeing Moa. However, I do take exception to being misquoted - where did I state or infer Madeleine was a 'hated kid'? I said something very different.

.

Sorry, you did not say hate ! That was my word, but either you love, hate or feel nothing, and you really have to hate or dislike a child a lot to pre plann a death or whatever..I don't think thats she was disliked or unwanted in any way..I think the love they had for her is what's enabling them to keep going, they knew they loved her and that it was an accident, and they have plenty of good reasons to keep their lie alive..and with that in their minds, they feel less guilty for fooling the world, and can justify everything they do with that..IMO ..

And yes wouldnt this forum be very uninteresting if we all had the same eyes And way of thinking [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

rainbow-fairy wrote:Sorry, the 'accident, cover-up and snowball effect' just does not work for me. Far too much was in place far too quickly, imo.
The 'Look' campaign, emphasis on the (non-existent?) coloboma, the 'Find Maddie Fund' - the lie that by 11 pm that night, reports were emerging of PT police 'doing nothing'. I don't believe the idea for the campaign came to Gerry in an instant in church, I think it'd been worked out long before then. Most telling for me was Gerry' comment 'I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleines abduction long-term' (mind boggling).
I err towards pre-meditation also because of the personalities involved. Gerry is a control freak and we've seen his reactions to unexpected events - the dogs searching the new villa and the hire car were a real curve-ball, and knocked him for six. Remember the description of him sobbing on the floor of the police station "We're finished, our lives are over"? I don't believe he'dve held it together with an accidental death. Far more likely to cope better with pre-meditation, just my opinion...
I know it sounds harsh, but people do plan and execute such things. I get the feeling the bond was weak with Madeleine. I even get the impression the McCanns wanted two children only. Maddie was definitely, to some degree a 'separate entity'. I think it was a Dr Martin Roberts analysis where K+G were asked about memories of Madeleine, the reply from G was 'You know, just her in the playroom, playing with her, with her, with... the twins'. Why not 'Her brother and sister' or 'Her siblings'. He was strongly resisting saying something. Why. And what was it?
The sheer speed at which the Fund was set up, and the fact they were concentrating on that as opposed to searching for their daughter... It all points firmly away from accident, imo (and I don't WANT to believe they were cold-blooded enough to plan it all) - I just don't see evidence of 'on the hoof' reactionary actions. I see a plan that (more or less) ran properly... Were the other Tapas in on it? I'm not so sure on that one...