Why cover for each other?
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Latest News and Debate :: Debate Section - for purporting theories
Page 1 of 1 • Share
Why cover for each other?
by Trainer 31.05.13 8:30
Just a theory
When looking at the whole why would you want to coverup the sad loss of a child
I always thought of sex drugs shaking in a rage etc. but would your wife/husband really cover for you in the immediate and the long term?
Would your friends cover?
The friends are easy and help shorten the possible reasons.
Shaken with rage.......no reason to cover for your mates, you may well keep silent but hats as far as it goes,
Sex........ You don't take your mom along to a swinging pedo party
Drugs....... If you too have dosed up the kids so they had a good nights sleep...........mmmmmm you could be struck off ...... No job loss of professionally status .... Now there's a reason !
Ok this hypothesise starts to point towards a drugs overdose ........but / could you really stand by the partner who was responsible for the loss of your beloved child? Would it not eat at you every time the child's name was mentioned ?
Drugs overdose would doctors not know how to administer the correct dosage ? Well yes of course BUT ..... and this is the big BUT...... What if they add both administered the correct dose , just an easy little mixup when you have just slurped a couple of bottles of plonk, suddenly poor little one has double the dose if they don't realise and pop out for a little tapas.
So you can't blame your other half your both as guilty as each other you have to cover for each other .......your mates have to cover as their kids would test positive for the sleeping potion
Just a hypothesis ..... No evidence ........no just an idea
When looking at the whole why would you want to coverup the sad loss of a child
I always thought of sex drugs shaking in a rage etc. but would your wife/husband really cover for you in the immediate and the long term?
Would your friends cover?
The friends are easy and help shorten the possible reasons.
Shaken with rage.......no reason to cover for your mates, you may well keep silent but hats as far as it goes,
Sex........ You don't take your mom along to a swinging pedo party
Drugs....... If you too have dosed up the kids so they had a good nights sleep...........mmmmmm you could be struck off ...... No job loss of professionally status .... Now there's a reason !
Ok this hypothesise starts to point towards a drugs overdose ........but / could you really stand by the partner who was responsible for the loss of your beloved child? Would it not eat at you every time the child's name was mentioned ?
Drugs overdose would doctors not know how to administer the correct dosage ? Well yes of course BUT ..... and this is the big BUT...... What if they add both administered the correct dose , just an easy little mixup when you have just slurped a couple of bottles of plonk, suddenly poor little one has double the dose if they don't realise and pop out for a little tapas.
So you can't blame your other half your both as guilty as each other you have to cover for each other .......your mates have to cover as their kids would test positive for the sleeping potion
Just a hypothesis ..... No evidence ........no just an idea
Trainer- Posts : 46
Activity : 56
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-01-26
Location : Uk
PeterMac- Investigator
- Posts : 13589
Activity : 16578
Likes received : 2065
Join date : 2010-12-06 -
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Praiaaa 31.05.13 8:45
Hypothetically, you could enviseage a situation where you tell what appears to be a minor white lie to help a friend out of a sticky situation - eg a lie about something happening every 5 mins instead of every 10, as your friend convinces you that it is 'irrelevant to the pertinent facts, but would sidetrack investigators and waste time'. The you find that actually that point is pertinent, but you are now embroiled in a deception that could lead to repercussions for you, and other friends who have been persuaded to tell that white lie - if you reveal the truth several other are also implicated.. You are then open to blackmail. You will then get in deeper and deeper trying to cover tracks covering tracks, until you have no way out other that losing your job, home, credibility, whole professional reputation and all you have 'worked for', especially if you are the first generation to achieve 'professional' status. (You can also 'justify ' it to yourself that it would not be fair on you own DC is you went to prison, and in any case of a death, nothing can bring back the dead person.)
Praiaaa- Posts : 426
Activity : 497
Likes received : 45
Join date : 2011-04-17
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Lostfridge 31.05.13 9:25
I don't believe any of the children were sedated, at least not based on analysis of the twins behaviour, as its not that unusual. My kids once deep asleep will sleep through pretty much anything, especially after a busy day playing and physical activity.
As much as I hate to say it, the PJ dropped the ball again and should have insisted and ensure they had samples (hair especially) from the twins from day one, why didn't they?.
As much as I hate to say it, the PJ dropped the ball again and should have insisted and ensure they had samples (hair especially) from the twins from day one, why didn't they?.
Lostfridge- Posts : 149
Activity : 153
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-02-11
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Praiaaa 31.05.13 9:28
Wow, this document is fantastic! Thanks you PeterMac. Completely clarifies the points regarding the timeline (!!) and discrepancies in the accounts.
How on earth can any police force spend 4.5m, chasing numerous 'paedophiles who were in Portugal at that time' when the facts are all clearly and succinctly laid out.
Shall print out the whole thing to read later. ( Just hope I am not forgetful enough to leave it on the train, or in a café, and have to print another...)
Praiaaa- Posts : 426
Activity : 497
Likes received : 45
Join date : 2011-04-17
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Woofer 31.05.13 9:55
Wow - excellent - where did this come from? Never seen it before. Everyone should read.
Woofer- Posts : 3390
Activity : 3508
Likes received : 14
Join date : 2012-02-06
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Woofer 31.05.13 10:26
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/quote[/url]]No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:There was a recent topic on this.
[url=https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7075-new-free-e-book-what-really-happened-to-madeleine-mccann-by-michael-mclean
Thanks NFWTD - must have missed that one.
Woofer- Posts : 3390
Activity : 3508
Likes received : 14
Join date : 2012-02-06
why cover for each other?
by marconi 31.05.13 11:33
Why? Tapas 7 was manipulated by the McCanns and they all probably thought the case would not last longer than 6 weeks.
An abduction, Tanner a witness, British government in favor of the parents, pressure on Portugal.
They uderestimated the PJ's capacity and the public.
An abduction, Tanner a witness, British government in favor of the parents, pressure on Portugal.
They uderestimated the PJ's capacity and the public.
marconi- Posts : 1082
Activity : 1104
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-05-20
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Guest 31.05.13 12:54
I think that Kate in particular just never imagined that she as a respected doctor (MY ELBOW!) would not be believed.
There must surely be times when, knowing what she does six years later, she wishes that she had told the truth back in 2007.
However, to quote the Find Madeleine website, it's never too late to do the right thing.
Yes indeed!
There must surely be times when, knowing what she does six years later, she wishes that she had told the truth back in 2007.
However, to quote the Find Madeleine website, it's never too late to do the right thing.
Yes indeed!
Guest- Guest
Re: Why cover for each other?
by bobbin 31.05.13 13:21
Who says the PJ didn't get samples when the twins were playing with the friendly police officer's children, along with finger prints on the drinking glasses, samples of saliva etc.Lostfridge wrote:I don't believe any of the children were sedated, at least not based on analysis of the twins behaviour, as its not that unusual. My kids once deep asleep will sleep through pretty much anything, especially after a busy day playing and physical activity.
As much as I hate to say it, the PJ dropped the ball again and should have insisted and ensure they had samples (hair especially) from the twins from day one, why didn't they?.
Don't forget that not everything has been revealed in the released PJ files. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
bobbin- Posts : 2053
Activity : 2240
Likes received : 145
Join date : 2011-12-05
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Monty Heck 31.05.13 17:00
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 8:43 am
see
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Chapter 5
Great find, deals with some of the key questions logically and systematically. There is no logic behind 2 trained anaesthetists failng to call for immediate testing in these circumstances if, as they are suggesting an unkown substance had been administered by unknown persons. In such a scenario it would have been medicaly negligent not to have insisted on immediate testing, yet we are supposed to believe that they believed that the twins may have been sedated by an unknown intruder who whisked off their other child in the process, but did absolutely nothing to find out what that was or whether the children could be harmed by it. KMcC "wandered in" periodically to check for vital signs and that was enough, apparently. Enough when you know exactly what was administered, by whom and when, but insane when you apparently believe a stranger came into your flat and drugged your children with substance/s unknown.
Add the fact that no testing was done until all traces would have been eliminated, which they would have been well aware of. It's really strange the PJ seem to have let that opportunity pass; although they seem to have been pretty clued up that sedation was likely going on they don't seem to have done anything to test that hypothesis.
Perhaps the PJ thought clinical proof irrelevant as there was already sufficient circumstancial evidence. Which incidentally there still is, despite what Trich labs or whoever came up with, so late in the day. The only proof given by those tests was that there were no signs of sedation - then - 3 months or so later. Certainly the McCs did apparently flag up some concerns re sedation to the PJ but curioiusly not very insistently. Indeed they could have arranged for private testing at an early point if their concerns regarding sedation by an intruder were genuine, if dissatisfied with PJ's response. What else was the fund for?
As well as the circumstantial evidence from witness testimony on the night, it must surely be queried how the McC children, apparently capable of falling into synchronised sleep as if to order each night of their holiday became difficult to settle in subsequent weeks, as remarked on in GMcC's daily blog. Rather than immediately settling early as before, only when looked after by family members other than their parents did the children seem to resume their co-operative sleeping habits.
Pre 3 May we are to believe it was merely the cast iron "routine" which had worked its nightly magic on all 3 children, not forgetting the equally co-operative offspring of the rest of the group. When viewed together, the lack of proactive behaviour on the part of the 2 anaesthetists on the fateful night, the lack of insistence on testing until too late to be relevant plus children who suddenly started to be unexpectedly difficult at bedtimes, it is hard to understand the apparent lack of any investigative interest in the issue of sedation. Who knows, this may indeed be the key to unravelling the truth of what happened and certainly seems a better bet than chasing cleaners in white vans.
see
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Chapter 5
Great find, deals with some of the key questions logically and systematically. There is no logic behind 2 trained anaesthetists failng to call for immediate testing in these circumstances if, as they are suggesting an unkown substance had been administered by unknown persons. In such a scenario it would have been medicaly negligent not to have insisted on immediate testing, yet we are supposed to believe that they believed that the twins may have been sedated by an unknown intruder who whisked off their other child in the process, but did absolutely nothing to find out what that was or whether the children could be harmed by it. KMcC "wandered in" periodically to check for vital signs and that was enough, apparently. Enough when you know exactly what was administered, by whom and when, but insane when you apparently believe a stranger came into your flat and drugged your children with substance/s unknown.
Add the fact that no testing was done until all traces would have been eliminated, which they would have been well aware of. It's really strange the PJ seem to have let that opportunity pass; although they seem to have been pretty clued up that sedation was likely going on they don't seem to have done anything to test that hypothesis.
Perhaps the PJ thought clinical proof irrelevant as there was already sufficient circumstancial evidence. Which incidentally there still is, despite what Trich labs or whoever came up with, so late in the day. The only proof given by those tests was that there were no signs of sedation - then - 3 months or so later. Certainly the McCs did apparently flag up some concerns re sedation to the PJ but curioiusly not very insistently. Indeed they could have arranged for private testing at an early point if their concerns regarding sedation by an intruder were genuine, if dissatisfied with PJ's response. What else was the fund for?
As well as the circumstantial evidence from witness testimony on the night, it must surely be queried how the McC children, apparently capable of falling into synchronised sleep as if to order each night of their holiday became difficult to settle in subsequent weeks, as remarked on in GMcC's daily blog. Rather than immediately settling early as before, only when looked after by family members other than their parents did the children seem to resume their co-operative sleeping habits.
Pre 3 May we are to believe it was merely the cast iron "routine" which had worked its nightly magic on all 3 children, not forgetting the equally co-operative offspring of the rest of the group. When viewed together, the lack of proactive behaviour on the part of the 2 anaesthetists on the fateful night, the lack of insistence on testing until too late to be relevant plus children who suddenly started to be unexpectedly difficult at bedtimes, it is hard to understand the apparent lack of any investigative interest in the issue of sedation. Who knows, this may indeed be the key to unravelling the truth of what happened and certainly seems a better bet than chasing cleaners in white vans.
Monty Heck- Posts : 470
Activity : 472
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2012-09-09
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Ayniia 31.05.13 17:34
Why cover for each other (my opinion ):
-To cover the hypothesis of being charged with neglect (obviously not knowing that Portuguese laws are different from British ones in that subject )
-To cover the use of sedatives on the children (after reading things that Kate wrote in her fairy-tale book "madeleine " it's clear she has a non healthy obsession with the children bed times )
-To prevent the twins of loosing both parents.
All of it underestimating the PJ, thinking their foreigner doctors status would make them totally credible without any doubt. But no one was expecting a HERO like Amaral crossing their path.
-To cover the hypothesis of being charged with neglect (obviously not knowing that Portuguese laws are different from British ones in that subject )
-To cover the use of sedatives on the children (after reading things that Kate wrote in her fairy-tale book "madeleine " it's clear she has a non healthy obsession with the children bed times )
-To prevent the twins of loosing both parents.
All of it underestimating the PJ, thinking their foreigner doctors status would make them totally credible without any doubt. But no one was expecting a HERO like Amaral crossing their path.
____________________
"My advice to any British tourist ,please come to Portugal,please come to the Algarve but if you're coming as a family holiday treat it as a family holiday and do things together, don't leave the kids"
Words from an ExPat Algarve resident
Ayniia- Posts : 546
Activity : 586
Likes received : 8
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Portugal
Re: Why cover for each other?
by suzyjohnson 31.05.13 18:22
If they did cover for each other, it probably seemed a lot less complicated initially than it did later on. I think that, as doctors, they would have expected to have been believed.
Regarding sedation, even if KM had felt confident as a doctor to monitor the sleeping twins, I am certain she would've wanted to know exactly what substance, if any, the twins had been given. Firstly, for their safety but also because it may have been a very strong clue as to who a possible abductor may have been.
Now KM claims she suspected sedation from the start? I expect she didn't know until the publication of the interviews that Fiona had told the police that Kate kept checking the twins. What other explanation could KM give for that?
Regarding sedation, even if KM had felt confident as a doctor to monitor the sleeping twins, I am certain she would've wanted to know exactly what substance, if any, the twins had been given. Firstly, for their safety but also because it may have been a very strong clue as to who a possible abductor may have been.
Now KM claims she suspected sedation from the start? I expect she didn't know until the publication of the interviews that Fiona had told the police that Kate kept checking the twins. What other explanation could KM give for that?
____________________
suzyjohnson- Posts : 1209
Activity : 1542
Likes received : 271
Join date : 2013-03-03
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Ayniia 31.05.13 18:43
suzyjohnson wrote:If they did cover for each other, it probably seemed a lot less complicated initially than it did later on. I think that, as doctors, they would have expected to have been believed.
Regarding sedation, even if KM had felt confident as a doctor to monitor the sleeping twins, I am certain she would've wanted to know exactly what substance, if any, the twins had been given. Firstly, for their safety but also because it may have been a very strong clue as to who a possible abductor may have been.
Now KM claims she suspected sedation from the start? I expect she didn't know until the publication of the interviews that Fiona had told the police that Kate kept checking the twins. What other explanation could KM give for that?
There's no substance that can instantly knock someone out unless chloroform, or something injected. That being said, no chloroform smell, only possibility would leave needle marks. This of course trying to go along with the abduction / sedation story. If Kate really suspected something like that could have happened, she'd be the first to call an ambulance. IMO the twins were given something to sleep that night, I don't buy that they were too tired / heavy sleepers whatever to get trough screaming, lights on, checking the shutters (lots of noise ) and being carried away without any of them even blinking. I have no children so I have no idea if they were able to talk by their age but if they were it would have "ruined " the plan from the start.
____________________
"My advice to any British tourist ,please come to Portugal,please come to the Algarve but if you're coming as a family holiday treat it as a family holiday and do things together, don't leave the kids"
Words from an ExPat Algarve resident
Ayniia- Posts : 546
Activity : 586
Likes received : 8
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Portugal
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Guest 31.05.13 20:12
IIRC Gerry in his "who would want to know ... ?" early blogs mentioned amongst others that the twins had become much more vocal soon after the disapearance [and were sleeping in a bed & had taken a liking to sea bass & etc. ...]. IMO Sean would have been able to tell, if not brainwashed ... All IMO, of course, and tin hat on ... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Guest- Guest
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Guest 31.05.13 20:16
I know that my son at just over 2 could talk the hind leg off a donkey but of course children develop at their own pace.
It certainly would have been a good idea to talk to the twins. If they were anything like the child prodigies that Kate wants us to believe that Madeleine was, they could have been a mine of information.
It certainly would have been a good idea to talk to the twins. If they were anything like the child prodigies that Kate wants us to believe that Madeleine was, they could have been a mine of information.
Guest- Guest
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Guest 31.05.13 20:37
All I'm saying is that the twins could have been useful witnesses as to what happened on the day when Madeleine disappeared - or was reported missing in case it wasn't the same day.
Guest- Guest
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Guest 31.05.13 20:55
NFWTD, you may have misunderstood my "typical" Dutch straight-forward approach. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Here in France, it's even more embarrassing occasionally ... when I don't use the "reverence", "patitapata", etc. and just use "Yes" or "No" as an answer ...
So: YES! The twins could have been useful witnesses, BUT they were not used ...
Here in France, it's even more embarrassing occasionally ... when I don't use the "reverence", "patitapata", etc. and just use "Yes" or "No" as an answer ...
So: YES! The twins could have been useful witnesses, BUT they were not used ...
Guest- Guest
why cover up each other?
by marconi 01.06.13 2:03
"Fuck off! I'm not here to enjoy myself!" Gerry's words when he arrived in Algarve on the 28th.
Which means that Kate was the one who wanted a break, not Gerry.
Which mother wants to go far away, even abroad, with two small two years old twins and a nearly four years old child, staying in a unknown place, much and much less comfortable than her own home, carrying the twins all the time, just transporting her normal household and daily life into difficult circunstances?
Especially comparing their home to 5a?
Can you call that a break or a break down?
Payne planned the trip...
What was behind those holidays?
Which means that Kate was the one who wanted a break, not Gerry.
Which mother wants to go far away, even abroad, with two small two years old twins and a nearly four years old child, staying in a unknown place, much and much less comfortable than her own home, carrying the twins all the time, just transporting her normal household and daily life into difficult circunstances?
Especially comparing their home to 5a?
Can you call that a break or a break down?
Payne planned the trip...
What was behind those holidays?
marconi- Posts : 1082
Activity : 1104
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-05-20
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Guest 01.06.13 9:15
I had an aunt who would never go on holiday because, in her words, it would just be exchanging one sink for another!
In those far off days all she would have been able to afford was a self-catering holiday, so she probably had a point. Things are different now in that holidays are so much comparatively cheaper, with food and entertainment provided and, for those who want to dump their children in a crèche all day, that can be arranged!
Gerry's delightful comment could just have been the result of momentary tiredness after a long journey with the children playing up.
Why Team McCann didn't remove it I don't know.
In those far off days all she would have been able to afford was a self-catering holiday, so she probably had a point. Things are different now in that holidays are so much comparatively cheaper, with food and entertainment provided and, for those who want to dump their children in a crèche all day, that can be arranged!
Gerry's delightful comment could just have been the result of momentary tiredness after a long journey with the children playing up.
Why Team McCann didn't remove it I don't know.
Guest- Guest
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Ayniia 01.06.13 9:32
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I had an aunt who would never go on holiday because, in her words, it would just be exchanging one sink for another!
In those far off days all she would have been able to afford was a self-catering holiday, so she probably had a point. Things are different now in that holidays are so much comparatively cheaper, with food and entertainment provided and, for those who want to dump their children in a crèche all day, that can be arranged!
Gerry's delightful comment could just have been the result of momentary tiredness after a long journey with the children playing up.
Why Team McCann didn't remove it I don't know.
Yes they had to remind them they were on holiday.
IMO given the suspicious amount of high profile people in PDL along with the hasty departure of some, I'd say some business. Medical sort of business BUT something they didn't wanted to be known.
____________________
"My advice to any British tourist ,please come to Portugal,please come to the Algarve but if you're coming as a family holiday treat it as a family holiday and do things together, don't leave the kids"
Words from an ExPat Algarve resident
Ayniia- Posts : 546
Activity : 586
Likes received : 8
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Portugal
Re: Why cover for each other?
by Guest 01.06.13 9:40
marconi wrote: Payne planned the trip...
What was behind those holidays?
And how fortunate they brought the mammy with them. Why did they opt for Portugal where everything was up in the air when they could have settled on a safe and secure compound in Egypt where even the weather would have been guaranteed.
MO or ROB don't strike me as the type who would cover for a mere acquaintance for the sake of it.
Guest- Guest
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Latest News and Debate :: Debate Section - for purporting theories
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
