Who would finally tell the truth about the disappearance of Madeleine?

by bristow 11.12.11 22:00

Does anyone have an opinion as to who they think would likely to be the one who finally can't take any more, holding in such information and lies can't be good for the soul?
Do you think it would be the parents, one of the Tapas 7, or maybe even someone related to the family?
Other possibilities could be, CM although that would implicate him too I would suspect?

I remember a couple were going to reveal the truth a few years ago but backed out at the last minute, I have been searching for a link to this, do we know who they were for sure?

Surely any person with a conscience and a normal mind couldn't hold on to such a secret for the rest of their lives, or could they?

by mrscee 11.12.11 22:12

This is a very interesting question Bristow. I wonder this often too. But I also wonder whether conscience has actually stopped coming into question now, because none of the individuals can go back on the decisions they have already made. There is this theory of path dependence:

Path dependence explains how the set of decisions one faces for any given circumstance is limited by the decisions one has made in the past, even though past circumstances may no longer be relevant.^[1]

People become trapped by the decisions they have made in the past, and it will take a peculiar set of circumstances for anyone to open up at this juncture in my opinion. They are too entrenched in the story they have created- their children, families, work colleagues all believe the story. It makes it harder and harder to go back. Then again, I am cynical. Will be v interested to know what others think. Regarding the couple who were going to reveal all, I don't know about that one I'm afraid.

by Shibboleth 11.12.11 22:24

There was a rumor that two of the Tapas wanted to change their statements. I would make a guess that it was Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner.

by uppatoffee 11.12.11 22:41

Shibboleth wrote:There was a rumor that two of the Tapas wanted to change their statements. I would make a guess that it was Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner.

This is what I understood as well, but I don't know if this is forum myth or wishful thinking. Perhaps one of the longer standing members might know where this came from?

by bristow 11.12.11 22:46

I've just found this but it is from the DM. (quite interesting though, with a couple of good pics.)

'the two who want to change
details in their accounts of the night of May 3 were said to have
asked that their names are kept secret to avoid pressure from those
close to the McCanns.'

Although it does go on to name four of them!

Read more: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by bristow 11.12.11 22:59

mrscee wrote:This is a very interesting question Bristow. I wonder this often too. But I also wonder whether conscience has actually stopped coming into question now, because none of the individuals can go back on the decisions they have already made. There is this theory of path dependence:

Path dependence explains how the set of decisions one faces for any given circumstance is limited by the decisions one has made in the past, even though past circumstances may no longer be relevant.^[1]

People become trapped by the decisions they have made in the past, and it will take a peculiar set of circumstances for anyone to open up at this juncture in my opinion. They are too entrenched in the story they have created- their children, families, work colleagues all believe the story. It makes it harder and harder to go back. Then again, I am cynical. Will be v interested to know what others think. Regarding the couple who were going to reveal all, I don't know about that one I'm afraid.

That's very interesting, thank you mrscee.
So true, living the lie, they will have it so ingrained into their soul that they nearly believe it's true and maybe even forget fact from fiction.
It can't be a good life though, especially if they follow the media.
Perhaps there will be a deathbed confession in many years to come. I hope the truth is revealed very soon though.

by Guest 12.12.11 0:42

It's a very good question bristow. It's a long road now from 3rd May 2007, people, perspectives, objectives, relationships and friendships will have altered. My tuppence would go to Russell & Jane.

by bristow 12.12.11 8:59

I would imagine a custodial sentence would be a massive deterrent for someone who wanted to reveal all but maybe the justice system would look favourably at them for speaking out and reduce the sentence, I wonder what sort of sentence would be given in this hypothetical situation?

by Liz Eagles 12.12.11 9:53

A house of cards is only as good as the person placing the top card. It only takes the conscience of one person, the change in circumstances of their finance, the change of their marital status, the change of their ability to cover up something that haunts.

by **PeterMac** 12.12.11 11:28

aquila wrote:A house of cards is only as good as the person placing the top card. It only takes the conscience of one person, the change in circumstances of their finance, the change of their marital status, the change of their ability to cover up something that haunts.

I think a better metaphor might be that the house depends on the person who placed the bottom ones. If they are prepared to shift that one slightly then ....

In this case the house is built on JT's 'sighting", on KM's slamming doors and whooshing curtains, on GM's jemmied shutters, and is reinforced by the vital evidential detail from KM that, in her own words "I knew. I knew".
They did have to move the bottom cards very early on, changing from entry by front door using key to entry by patio door - unlocked, but at that stage the whole house was not yet constructed and so it did not wholly fall down, just get knocked about a bit.

by Shibboleth 12.12.11 11:30

or perhaps *the chain is only as strong as it's weakest link*

by Liz Eagles 12.12.11 11:36

PeterMac wrote:
aquila wrote:A house of cards is only as good as the person placing the top card. It only takes the conscience of one person, the change in circumstances of their finance, the change of their marital status, the change of their ability to cover up something that haunts.
I think a better metaphor might be that the house depends on the person who placed the bottom ones. If they are prepared to shift that one slightly then ....

In this case the house is built on JT's 'sighting", on KM's slamming doors and whooshing curtains, on GM's jemmied shutters, and is reinforced by the vital evidential detail from KM that, in her own words "I knew. I knew".
They did have to move the bottom cards very early on, changing from entry by front door using key to entry by patio door - unlocked, but at that stage the whole house was not yet constructed and so it did not wholly fall down, just get knocked about a bit.

That is perfect. I quoted the house of cards and the person on the top (oh bugger I was thinking of Gerry's stance)...lol

anyway, it doesn't matter. It's all going to crash at some point.