The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

something nefarious

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:25 pm

@bobbin wrote:

I think you failed to grasp ultimThule's message.
UNTIL the cry went out and subsequently then, the police would certainly be called, by someone/anyone, no-one would have been the wiser if Maddie had died on 3rd whilst her parents were at dinner.
But Gerry and Kate were the ones to let the 'cry' out re abduction, and start the whole ball rolling.
So we are facing two options.
1. Gerry genuinely believes Maddie has been abducted and goes into a panic, draws attention to the crisis, calls the newspapers, the police, anyone, everyone.
or
2. Gerry, being the calculating person he has shown himself to be, knows Maddie has 'died' previously, but to cover his and Kate's hides (or maybe even someone else's) rolls out a plan.

My apologies, but you have failed to take in the theory I put forward. It involves option 3:

3. Gerry genuinely believes Maddie has wandered off and goes into a panic, draws attention to the crisis, people get involved. Then Maddie is found dead at the moment of the scream heard by J.R.Salcedas. At this point the decision to conceal the body is made.

Read the statement of J.R.Salcedas again that I quoted. You'll see that option 3 is perfectly plausible in the context of this statement.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by tigger on Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:26 pm

Isn't cognitive dissonance a mixed metaphore?  Or is it an example of hendiadys. Just trying to learn.   winkwink

Eta:  if you want to go for the panic theory, where did those photographs come in?
Why did his brother give up his job to go and search? He didn't.
Why didn 't any of the family search?
Were they told the truth? In that case why did brother John give up his job?


Why not wait till the  day when you could have found a hiding place and worked something out.

Amaral may have his private opinion but he wrote the book to clear his name and he stuck with the information available  at that time and that which was in the public domain.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by chillyheat on Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:38 pm

@tigger wrote:Isn't cognitive dissonance a mixed metaphore?  Or is it an example of hendiadys. Just trying to learn.   winkwink

Eta:  if you want to go for the panic theory, where did those photographs come in?
Why did his  brother give up his job to go and search? He didn't.
Why didn 't any of the family search?
Were they told the truth? In that case why did brother John give up his job?


Why not wait till the  day when you could have found a hiding place and worked something out.

Amaral may have his private opinion but he wrote the book to clear his name and he stuck with the information available  at that time and that which was in the public domain.


Simply.....There was an agenda that carries on until this day..IMO

chillyheat

Posts : 814
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:48 pm

@tigger wrote:
Amaral may have his private opinion but he wrote the book to clear his name and he stuck with the information available  at that time and that which was in the public domain.

But do you think that the theory I posted closely follows Amaral's theory in 'The Truth of The Lie'?

The conclusions from the book as a reminder:

1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
2. There was simulation of abduction.
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body.
4. The death may have occurred as a result of a tragic accident;
5. The evidence proves the parents' negligence concerning the care and safety of the children.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Curioser on Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:49 pm

Welcome to the rabbit hole.

____________________
I have no direct knowledge of the case. I'm just reading the files. It's all speculation. Don't sue me!

Curioser

Posts : 166
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2013-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Guest on Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:58 pm

It isn't certain that John McCann gave up his job; that may have been a misunderstanding. His LinkedIn profile does not show any gaps in employment.

http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/john-mccann/11/589/304

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by tigger on Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:12 pm

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@tigger wrote:
Amaral may have his private opinion but he wrote the book to clear his name and he stuck with the information available  at that time and that which was in the public domain.

But do you think that the theory I posted closely follows Amaral's theory in 'The Truth of The Lie'?

The conclusions from the book as a reminder:

1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
2. There was simulation of abduction.
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body.
4. The death may have occurred as a result of a tragic accident;
5. The evidence proves the parents' negligence concerning the care and safety of the children.

I would agree with all the above except the date. I would say that not all the telephone data were available at the time although I believe Amaral has mentioned the 14  voicemails sent to Gerry on the 2nd of May.

Re John McCann: I'd have to look but I'm sure he said that, no doubt in my mind it was part of the publicity stunts. I don't believe for a moment he did, but looks good. Uncommonly forgiving employers otherwise. Pharma.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Guest on Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:14 pm

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

My apologies, but you have failed to take in the theory I put forward.  It involves option 3:

3. Gerry genuinely believes Maddie has wandered off and goes into a panic, draws attention to the crisis, people get involved.  Then Maddie is found dead at the moment of the scream heard by J.R.Salcedas.  At this point the decision to conceal the body is made.

Read the statement of J.R.Salcedas again that I quoted.  You'll see that option 3 is perfectly plausible in the context of this statement.

Did anybody else hear this scream? Besides, no matter whether Kate (assuming it was she who cried out) was involved or not involved, the time around the "discovery" would be a time of immense stress for all concerned - it would be quite possible to let out a primal scream at that stage, perhaps just because of the realisation of the reality and enormity of the path that you have committed yourself to has suddenly hit. Or maybe that would be the moment that it would finally strike you that you would never see your daughter, alive or dead, ever again? It's quite possible for people to have "revelations" of things they already know.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:24 pm

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Did anybody else hear this scream? Besides, no matter whether Kate (assuming it was she who cried out) was involved or not involved, the time around the "discovery" would be a time of immense stress for all concerned - it would be quite possible to let out a primal scream at that stage, perhaps just because of the realisation of the reality and enormity of the path that you have committed yourself to has suddenly hit. Or maybe that would be the moment that it would finally strike you that you would never see your daughter, alive or dead, ever again? It's quite possible for people to have "revelations" of things they already know.

I can't think of a reason for the waiter Salcedas to make it up, perhaps you can. As it is, I'm just working with the evidence that we have, and Salcedas is an independent witness, not a sympathetic witness.

Also, you're just giving alternative explanations for the scream. I was making the point that my theory works in the context of Salcedas' statement. Alternative explanations don't make that theory less plausible.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Guest on Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:42 pm

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

I can't think of a reason for the waiter Salcedas to make it up, perhaps you can. As it is, I'm just working with the evidence that we have, and Salcedas is an independent witness, not a sympathetic witness.

Also, you're just giving alternative explanations for the scream.  I was making the point that my theory works in the context of Salcedas' statement.  Alternative explanations don't make that theory less plausible.

Hi, WLBTS, yes please don't think I was having a go. I agree that your account of possible events is coherent.

Somewhat off topic (or maybe not!) I mentioned in another thread that I was watching "Murder On The Orient Express". Somehow despite the famous book plus numerous film remakes etc. I had somehow made it to my fortieth year without having an inkling about the story. I know parallels have been drawn before with the McCann case, but the full repertoire of locked and unlocked doors, open windows, nighttime disturbances and sinister allegiances would give anybody familiar with this story several starts! Not to mention the early appearance of "Smithman", hurrying downstairs with the slumbering child resting on his shoulder.

Anyway, that was apropros of nothing! Just ignore me....

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on Tue Dec 17, 2013 1:55 pm

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Hi, WLBTS, yes please don't think I was having a go. I agree that your account of possible events is coherent.

Somewhat off topic (or maybe not!) I mentioned in another thread that I was watching "Murder On The Orient Express". Somehow despite the famous book plus numerous film remakes etc. I had somehow made it to my fortieth year without having an inkling about the story. I know parallels have been drawn before with the McCann case, but the full repertoire of locked and unlocked doors, open windows, nighttime disturbances and sinister allegiances would give anybody familiar with this story several starts! Not to mention the early appearance of "Smithman", hurrying downstairs with the slumbering child resting on his shoulder.

Anyway, that was apropros of nothing! Just ignore me....

I love Agatha Christie novels  big grin And I definitely don't think you were having a go, I just reiterated my point so it doesn't get lost :) Some people may get my intentions wrong - I'm not adhering to one theory to the exclusion of all others, I just prefer what I consider to be the simplest theory, Occam's Razor and all that. If the simplest theory is disproved in some way, I'll then switch to the next simplest one!

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by russiandoll on Tue Dec 17, 2013 2:43 pm

quote   wlbts   " To a narcissist, being on the national news for neglecting your small children and allowing one of them to die, with very possible hints of sedation, would be enough in my opinion to tip the scales towards self preservation. "


Here is where I disagree and why the theories will differ. I do not believe that Gerry McCann is a narcissist, I reserve that label for his wife.

Imo there is no way he would risk a walk with a deceased child through PdL.  Tigger and I disagree on the i.d of the decoy but I believe that he carried a small blonde girl down towards the beach, one who was very much alive, though deeply sedated.


 re my earlier post about the psychopathy scale, the C4 programme was illuminating for its dealing with non-criminals, it dealt with the writer Andy McNabb[ ex military] who scored high on the scale and a female lawyer who also relished the ease with which she manipulated others.

 Surgeons came high on the list, as did people working in finance.

 It was a long watch at 2 hours, but very educational.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:02 pm

@russiandoll wrote:
Here is where I disagree and why the theories will differ. I do not believe that Gerry McCann is a narcissist, I reserve that label for his wife.

Imo there is no way he would risk a walk with a deceased child through PdL.  Tigger and I disagree on the i.d of the decoy but I believe that he carried a small blonde girl down towards the beach, one who was very much alive, though deeply sedated.


 re my earlier post about the psychopathy scale, the C4 programme was illuminating for its dealing with non-criminals, it dealt with the writer Andy McNabb[ ex military] who scored high on the scale and a female lawyer who also relished the ease with which she manipulated others.

 Surgeons came high on the list, as did people working in finance.

 It was a long watch at 2 hours, but very educational.

He wouldn't risk the walk to conceal the body, he would prefer the police to find it in 5A and face the legal consequences?

I've heard the decoy mission mentioned many times, but I don't understand what its purpose would be.

- Is it to plant a false trail for the sniffer dogs?  If so, why not just plant a false trail to the car park, or even in the direction that Tannerman went?  Planting a trail across PDL seems like very risky overkill.

- Or maybe he was hoping to be seen by somebody to create an abductor sighting?  I don't see what the point of that would be.  Why do it at all?  And why time it so badly?  The Smith sighting occurred nearly 40-45 minutes after the alleged abduction (as was claimed at the time).  That would be pretty inept planning.  Why wait around for so long?

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by ultimaThule on Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:17 pm

With reference to the film 'Murder On The Orient Express', a group of relatives, friends, ex-employees and family retainers, gather together many years after the event to avenge the murder of a child which, in turn, led to the death of her mother.

In the case of Madeleine McCann, a group of relatives, friends, and employees gathered together with remarkable alacrity after the event to do, what appeared to me, anything and everthing but mourn the disappearance of a child.  

I've seen no display of what I consider to be genuine grief on the part of Madeleine's nearest and dearest and I've been taken aback by some of the footage of family members which I viewed courtesy of  No Fate Worse Than De'Ath.   I'll never forget the sight of the child's uncle, John McCann, virtually holding on to the arms of his chair to stop himself bouncing up and down with glee while beaming at the camera and looking for all the world like he'd just won the lottery.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Guest on Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:25 pm

I have many theories, for none of them hard evidence, though.

I still tend to think, after having read the book a couple of years ago, that Dr. Amaral offered them an acceptable solution out: She was still alive on Thursday at 5:30pm, she died that evening behind the couch in an accident with nobody involved, they decided to cover up & hide the body and they shouldn't have done that ...

My simplest theory is, that she died behind the sofa the evening before, they never noticed until the next morning, an autopsy would have revealed without a doubt that they were grossly negligent, the Thursday routines were distinctly different from the other days for obvious reasons ...

There are other, more nefarious, theories, which I prefer to keep to myself and some of my friends.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by russiandoll on Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:47 pm

wlbts



      I find Textusa  blog obtuse and long winded a lot of the time and disagree with the theory that resort workers and PdL ex pats were involved in covering up a death which occurred while adults were at a swinging event.



 Johanna blog believes this was Gerry with a deceased Maddie at the Smith sighting, but that Maddie had died the evening of 2nd.



Textusa says this



  And if you ever have seen a British family on holiday, with children, leaving a bar, in the Algarve, silence is not the best adjective to be applied.



And that man, surely had ALL his senses heightened to maximum capability.



Oh, he heard them alright...



To sum up, THAT man, THAT night on THAT street WANTED to be seen.



Instead of turning and hiding WITHOUT BEING SEEN, he walks straight on.



McCann, far from stupid knew his word alone would not prove abduction. I believe McCann walked through the street with Tanner’s sedated child dressed in Madeleine’s pyjamas. We know they were Maddie’s thanks to her little sister, when Kate held them up she said promptly 'Maddie’s'. The pyjamas were one and the same.

Whatever Maddie died in, they were not THOSE pyjamas.

The Smiths flew back and made their statement in secret May 26th...this information was not released.

So, all those that think that the Smith Sighting was public from day one are wrong, it wasn’t, it only became public known in the following articles
(1) (2), in the beginning of August 2007.

Then, and only then, did we all get to know that Martin Smith and his family had seen a man carrying a child.

Therefore, the only people that, between May and August 2007, knew that there was a person who had seen a child with bare feet in the pyjamas in the Rua da Escola Primária would have been the Smiths themselves, the IRISH and PORTUGUESE Polices and, obviously, the man who carried the child.

That man we now know to have been Gerry McCann. If, for nothing else, his behaviors in those days prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that yes, it was him.

Gerry McCann could not figure out why, a group of nine people, together with all the publicity, just didn’t come forward...

It was supposed to be a slam dunk case. A little girl had been abducted and he had made sure he had been seen carrying a barefooted, blonde little girl in pyjamas, and yet, albeit all the world coverage, THAT group of people simply didn’t surface.

What he didn’t know is that they had already, in effect, come forward, and made the statements that we now know, on May 26th.

Remember that at the time, ONLY the Smiths, PORTUGUESE and IRISH Polices and McStroller knew that.

Had JEZ WILKINS not come along when he did... and delayed slightly McCann, fate would probably determine that it wouldn’t be the Smith’s the crucial witnesses that night. They could have been some local residents, or better yet, Brit tourists. Someone, on the NEXT day, would have put two and two together and gone to PJ on the 4th.

And the McCanns would have had THEIR so much needed witness to the abduction... All the remainder details would have been completely overlooked, and all attention drawn not as to why, but as to where she had been taken to.

Maritime traffic would have scrutinized, many an illegal ship would have found sailing just off the coast. The couple would return home as martyrs.

It is the bare feet of the child and the pyjamas that ARE EMPHASIZED at the time, and not the man carrying the child.

In the beginning we just had an egg with hair (Tanner's description was released THREE weeks later to JOG the Smith's memory), in order to match Jane’s statement to what would surely be to the one given by that family that Gerry knew he had been seen by.




McCann told Tanner to mention this to PJ that night thinking the following day the witness would come forward on May 4th.

They did not and McCann waited and waited. Time tells us now that there were many things Gerry couldn’t control, and one of them was that the Smiths happened to return to Ireland on the 4th. Had they stayed in PdL and been caught up in all the media spectacle, it was likely they would come forward on the “planned” day.

To the McCann’s desperation (and ignorance), they simply didn’t appear.

And the tide started to turn against them. The Police started to look at the various blatant contradictions.

We now know that they did their best to distract the police by pointing the finger at Murat, who they knew, had played a part in that evening, and with some luck, some trace of Maddie would have been found linking him with to the “abducted” child. But the Murat’s were too careful from moment one. They understood the seriousness of the crime.

Murat got pointed out because the Smiths simply didn’t surface.

The tide continued to turn, stronger and stronger, against them. They had to act. Desperate, Gerry makes an appeal DIRECTLY and INEQUIVOCALY to the IRISH:

Day 37 June 9th 2007
After returning from the beach we did the Irish version of Crimewatch-‘Crimecall’. There are a lot of Irish tourists in and around Praia da Luz and although the awareness of Madeleine’s disappearance in Ireland is extremely high, we want to ensure that everyone is aware of the appeal and we want the Irish public to come forward with photographs of people who they do not know who were in and around Praia da Luz in the 2 weeks leading up to the 3rd May. The address to upload photographs is: to www.madeleine.ceopupload.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">www.madeleine.ceopupload.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.blogger.com/www.madeleine.ceopupload.com . We have also asked for people to contact their local police if they have seen a man matching the description of the suspect carrying a child seen around the time of Madeleine’s abduction. He is 30-40 years, 1.70-1.80m (5’7”-11”), caucasian and was wearing a dark jacket, beige or mustard coloured trousers with dark shoes. No major news on the investigation front- we still believe it is just a single phone call away
.

Why the IRISH? Is it a known fact that there are a “lot” of IRISH tourists in the Algarve? How many IRISH witnesses have you read in the tabloids or heard being involved in the infamous numerous sightings?

The only IRISH tourists that we’ve ever heard up to now of are the Smiths. They certainly DO NOT, by themselves, make up a 'lot'.

So, this DIRECT call to the IRISH will probably be explained, from the McCann Team as yet another of the inexplicable phenomenon that will certainly be studied in many fora in the future: The McCann Coincidence. They just keep coming in non-stop.

On this day, an appeal to the IRISH can ONLY mean that Gerry McCann knows that a group of IRISH people have seen a man carrying a child in all similar to his "abducted" daughter. And for him to know that, it can ONLY mean that he was the one seen with the child.

Murat by the May 14th was in the frame, but McCanns had here another bit of bad luck... Smith had seen, even if briefly, Murat before and confirmed it was not him with the child.

McCann continues to WAIT for the connection, he had done all he could to ask BEG even for THAT family to come forward.

As he says, ’IT IS JUST A SINGLE PHONE CALL AWAY’

Even, for argument’s sake, information had leaked out that the couple had come to the Police, which we have no reason for having happened, the fact is that they didn’t come out publicly. And that was absolutely required for the McCann marketing machine.

Martin Smith telephoned Leicester Police the evening of September 9th saying he recognized Gerry McCann... McCann would have been tipped off by his friendly bobby.


Note that ONLY from this date, is the Smith’s Sighting a liability against the McCanns. From this moment on, it’s important not only not to give it importance but to fragilize it as much as possible. What was an added value, suddenly has become cumbersome. VERY cumbersome.

LATER, Martin Smith said Brian Kennedy contacted him to be involved in some sort of photofit.

Martin Smith had to contact the MEDIA on several occasions because he said they kept misquoting him... It seems the child was now wrapped in a BLANKET... Martin Smith as we know from his statement has never mentioned a blanket.

Who was behind the media telling them to now say Mr.Smith saw a child wrapped in a blanket and why?

If he was confused about a blanket maybe he was also confused about recognizing Gerry McCann.

Unfortunately for Gerry, he was not.

But as this blog has proved, it’s NOT only the fact that Mr. Smith recognized Gerry that proves he was the McStroller, but it is due to his statement that we can rule out all the other male members.

Gerry McCann, is the McStroller.




Textusa

Knowing that the child carried was wearing pyjama bottoms and was barefooted, all similar to a child just abducted not even half a mile away, one can only deduce that what happened at that moment was a provoked “sighting”.

If you add to this, that Smith identifies Gerry McCann as the man he saw, this piece of the puzzle takes a whole new shape, and is of a different game altogether.

So why was Gerry McCann walking around Praia da Luz, looking to be seen holding a child, dressed like his daughter, in his arms, on the night she was supposedly kidnapped, around about the same time Kate McCann sounds off the alarm?

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:15 pm

@russiandoll wrote:
So why was Gerry McCann walking around Praia da Luz, looking to be seen holding a child, dressed like his daughter, in his arms, on the night she was supposedly kidnapped, around about the same time Kate McCann sounds off the alarm?

Yes, that is my main question - what on earth would be the purpose of this?

I can imagine Gerry and Bob (named changed to protect the innocent, well except for Gerry) discussing the plan:

G: I'm going to walk around with name of child towards the beach, so that someone will see me and report it as the abductor.
B: But won't they just point out that it was you when they see you on the news?
G: My face won't be on the news!
B: Unless you call Sky News yourself I suppose...
G: Let's not do that then!
B: So are you going to wear some strange clothes and then get rid of them?
G: Nah, I'll wear my cream trousers with the distinctive buttons on and just leave them on the bed for the police to photograph, and then later on appear in photographs wearing them.
B: So are there any CCTV cameras on this route you're going to take?
G: No idea, but if there are and I get caught, let's just hope that it gets wiped before the police get their hands on the tape.
B: So you're going to dress name of child up in Madeleine's pajamas?
G: Better than that, I'm going to dress her up in long sleeved pajamas, and then show the world short sleeved pajamas, just to keep things interesting.
B: What if somebody sees you coming back to the apartment?  That won't make any sense.
G: Don't worry about that, I'll just wear my handy invisibility cloak.
B: Why do this at all?  Is it really worth it, when you could get caught?
G: I won't get caught, I have tiger blood in my veins and I'm full of win.
B: So what do you want us to do while you're gone?
G: I want you to sit down and write out a suspicious timeline of events - use something very unlikely like Maddy's sticker book cover - and then leave it lying it around so the police will confiscate it. f*** it, make it two.
B: What for?
G: The voices in my head told me.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Guest on Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:34 pm

[quote="whatliesbehindthesofa"]
@russiandoll wrote:

Yes, that is my main question - what on earth would be the purpose of this?

I can imagine Gerry and Bob (named changed to protect the innocent, well except for Gerry) discussing the plan:

G: I'm going to walk around with name of child towards the beach, so that someone will see me and report it as the abductor.
B: But won't they just point out that it was you when they see you on the news?
G: My face won't be on the news!
B: Unless you call Sky News yourself I suppose...
G: Let's not do that then!
B: So are you going to wear some strange clothes and then get rid of them?
G: Nah, I'll wear my cream trousers with the distinctive buttons on and just leave them on the bed for the police to photograph, and then later on appear in photographs wearing them.
B: So are there any CCTV cameras on this route you're going to take?
G: No idea, but if there are and I get caught, let's just hope that it gets wiped before the police get their hands on the tape.
B: So you're going to dress name of child up in Madeleine's pajamas?
G: Better than that, I'm going to dress her up in long sleeved pajamas, and then show the world short sleeved pajamas, just to keep things interesting.
B: What if somebody sees you coming back to the apartment?  That won't make any sense.
G: Don't worry about that, I'll just wear my handy invisibility cloak.
B: Why do this at all?  Is it really worth it, when you could get caught?
G: I won't get caught, I have tiger blood in my veins and I'm full of win.
B: So what do you want us to do while you're gone?
G: I want you to sit down and write out a suspicious timeline of events - use something very unlikely like Maddy's sticker book cover - and then leave it lying it around so the police will confiscate it.  f*** it, make it two.
B: What for?
G: The voices in my head told me.

Yes, valid points. On the other hand, if Maddie did indeed meet her demise unexpectedly on the evening of the 3rd then Gerry was incredibly fortunate to be able to conceal her body sufficiently well to remain undiscovered during the initial searches. Is that what this whole affair is founded on - one monumental stroke of luck at the critical moment?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by russiandoll on Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:40 pm

@whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
@russiandoll wrote:
So why was Gerry McCann walking around Praia da Luz, looking to be seen holding a child, dressed like his daughter, in his arms, on the night she was supposedly kidnapped, around about the same time Kate McCann sounds off the alarm?

Yes, that is my main question - what on earth would be the purpose of this?

I can imagine Gerry and Bob (named changed to protect the innocent, well except for Gerry) discussing the plan:

G: I'm going to walk around with name of child towards the beach, so that someone will see me and report it as the abductor.
B: But won't they just point out that it was you when they see you on the news?

     seen in the dark but not recognised was the objective ?
  
G: My face won't be on the news!
B: Unless you call Sky News yourself I suppose...
G: Let's not do that then!
B: So are you going to wear some strange clothes and then get rid of them?
G: Nah, I'll wear my cream trousers with the distinctive buttons on and just leave them on the bed for the police to photograph, and then later on appear in photographs wearing them.
 
   enjoys games and risk and the concept of bluff and double bluff maybe?
 
B: So are there any CCTV cameras on this route you're going to take?
G: No idea, but if there are and I get caught, let's just hope that it gets wiped before the police get their hands on the tape.
     
    if M had died earlier than 3rd, time for a recce and to note where cctv was and could avert face as needed when the walk was done ?
 
B: So you're going to dress name of child up in Madeleine's pajamas?
G: Better than that, I'm going to dress her up in long sleeved pajamas, and then show the world short sleeved pajamas, just to keep things interesting.
B: What if somebody sees you coming back to the apartment?  That won't make any sense.
G: Don't worry about that, I'll just wear my handy invisibility cloak.

     no sense in being seen walking back with a sleeping child? not seen by the Smiths unless they went to get something they left in the bar, seen by others.....who would see what Smiths saw, a father carrying a sleeping child, presumably back home.

B: Why do this at all?  Is it really worth it, when you could get caught?
G: I won't get caught, I have tiger blood in my veins and I'm full of win.

    I agree with the above.

B: So what do you want us to do while you're gone?
G: I want you to sit down and write out a suspicious timeline of events - use something very unlikely like Maddy's sticker book cover - and then leave it lying it around so the police will confiscate it.  f*** it, make it two.

  Can you really not see why 2 timelines were written ?
B: What for?
G: The voices in my head told me.
 
    Gerry is not suffering from schizophrenia imo.



____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on Tue Dec 17, 2013 4:55 pm

@Russiandoll

Attempting to be seen but not be recognised seems to me like the plan of a lunatic or an imbecile.  It took a while, but Martin Smith did eventually identify him (mostly).  So it was proved to be a stupid plan in the end.

I'll ask the question again - what is the point of the decoy mission, when not doing it would seem to be a far safer course of action?

ETA I don't mean the purpose of the supposed decoy, you've explained that in detail - to be seen. What I am after is: why be seen?

As I've said before, I go with the simplest solution.  The simplest solution in this case is that Gerry was attempting to conceal the body and got caught.  It is simpler, because if you go with the decoy alternative, we are assuming that Maddy died earlier and the body was disposed of before this time.  We are assuming that the McCanns were able to eat a meal as if nothing had happened - while I'm prepared to give Gerry the credit for possibly being capable of this, I'm not so much with Kate, not at all.  We need an explanation as to why Gerry didn't bother to get rid of his cream trousers.  We need an explanation of how they managed to bungle the manufacturing of the crime scene so badly.

The simplest solution is ... the simplest.  So I'll stick with that for now.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on Tue Dec 17, 2013 5:10 pm

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Yes, valid points. On the other hand, if Maddie did indeed meet her demise unexpectedly on the evening of the 3rd then Gerry was incredibly fortunate to be able to conceal her body sufficiently well to remain undiscovered during the initial searches. Is that what this whole affair is founded on - one monumental stroke of luck at the critical moment?

He was either very lucky, or had help, or there is some information which we are not a party to.  But he wasn't that lucky - if it was him carrying his dead daughter (or even if it was a decoy), he was seen.  To me the most obvious points that make me disbelieve the McCanns are (1) Eddie and Keela, and (2) The Smiths' sighting.  Lots of other little things, but these are the big two for me.  And in my opinion the police forces of two countries feel the same, but of course I could be wrong.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Doug D on Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:10 pm

I agree with russiandoll regarding some of textusa's theories, but her blog dated 29th November makes a lot of sense. Anyone not wanting to be seen carrying a child through the streets had plenty of warning of the Smith party approaching & a number of opportunities to divert & escape before they were close enough to make any sort of identification. I don't know how accurate the meandering walk & crossing over to ensure he could be seen are, but even without these additions it seems reasonable that this was either an entirely innocent act (ie not 'abductor' or GM) or a deliberate ploy to ensure witnesses. Assuming it was a deliberate ploy carrying a 'stooge' who then needed to be returned to the OC by someone else, in case they were seen and similarly identified, it would not have been difficult to meet up & pass the child to someone who would then be walking back roughly from the night creche if a cover story was ever needed.

Doug D

Posts : 2227
Reputation : 728
Join date : 2013-12-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Guest on Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:53 pm

I think, we shouldn't forget that basically "everybody" was looking for a WAW child, not a dead one ... That changes what to search for tremendously ... Just purporting a theory - as ghastly as it may sound : throwing her over the wall of an unkept garden next to an empty house, would do the "trick". Then getting up early in the morning, before maybe other dogs get involved, searches by daylight resume ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by marconi on Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:20 pm

I wonder how do the McCanns manage to survive the investigation,  blogs, forums and sites.
They are very strong people.
I would not have made it, if it was my case.

marconi

Posts : 1082
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: something nefarious

Post by Guest on Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:32 pm

@marconi wrote:I wonder how do the McCanns manage to survive the investigation,  blogs, forums and sites.
They are very strong people.
I would not have made it, if it was my case.
***
marconi, you would have, I think, if your life, future, everything you hold on, is at stake....
But ... you'd probably not have got yourself into the "situation they find themselves in" to start with.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum