something nefarious

cockerspaniel wrote:There is NO WAY GMc carried his daughter through the streets that night ,especially to the beach (cmon, she would have been found,or he would  been 100% identified),

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

cockerspaniel wrote:There is NO WAY GMc carried his daughter through the streets that night ,especially to the beach (cmon, she would have been found,or he would  been 100% identified),

Because if it was an accident and there was no time to do anything else, I'm sure Gerry would have just sat there with a body waiting for the police, career soon to be in tatters and the strong possibility of jail time looming over his head.

I'm not saying that it was an accident and Gerry panicked.  I'm saying that I don't understand at all why yourself and others think the 'blind panic' theory is so impossible to consider.

REPLY.

if your daughter had just died,and you discovered her,you would not panic and sit there weighing up how it would affect your career, you would be FAR TO DISTRAUGHT! if it had happened in a blind panic moment then why has no-body ever been found.How far did he manage to go on foot and hide her,never to be found,with NO SPADE? Answer me that.

cockerspaniel wrote:
if your daughter had just died,and you discovered her,you would not panic and sit there weighing up how it would affect your career, you would be FAR TO DISTRAUGHT! if it had happened in a blind panic moment then why has no-body ever been found.How far did he manage to go on foot and hide her,never to be found,with NO SPADE? Answer me that.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:If the McCanns knew what was going to happen that night, why did somebody (allegedly) sedate the twins?  If the police caught wind of that, big questions would be asked.  That would seem an incredibly dangerous - and stupid - thing to do, if you knew that the police were going to be there.

REPLY

They were sedated so they would not be disturbed maybe.The police carried them out,resting against their shoulders IIRC.It was on the tv. Obviously the police didnt worry about that 1st thing,they had no reason to.The only person who seemed concerned at the time was KM,hence all the laying hands on twins backs to check they were breathing,but not concerned enough to voice her concerns to the police.




If what happened that evening was planned ahead of time, who screamed (as heard by waiter J.R.Salcedas) and why?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
'I ran out of the Tapas and noticed that some of the childcare works of the Mark Warner had begun to arrive. At the point I left the Tapas I heard a scream from a woman I did not know. I do not know who screamed, but I had never heard a similar cry. I cannot even describe it but thought it had come from the child's mother.'

This was all an act I take it?

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

cockerspaniel wrote:
if your daughter had just died,and you discovered her,you would not panic and sit there weighing up how it would affect your career, you would be FAR TO DISTRAUGHT! if it had happened in a blind panic moment then why has no-body ever been found.How far did he manage to go on foot and hide her,never to be found,with NO SPADE? Answer me that.

You're describing how you think you would react.  Not all human beings react to things in the same way.  And I find it strange that you find it implausible that someone could be calculating enough to think about their own future when faced with a catastrophe, and yet you find it plausible that the same person is capable of what I can only describe as 'pure evil'.

Reply

Then tell me how did he manage to hide her so well, on foot,at night,in a small village he probably didnt know very well,probably in some form of distress,to his OWN DAUGHTER.....never to be found.....then go of for a jog and a game of tennis a few days later?   And i will say it again,with no spade,just to rule out a beach burial.

No spade?  Woah, good point, you've got me there.

Re spade-Thought so!   

cockerspaniel wrote:
They were sedated so they would not be disturbed maybe.The police carried them out,resting against their shoulders IIRC.It was on the tv. Obviously the police didnt worry about that 1st thing,they had no reason to.The only person who seemed concerned at the time was KM,hence all the laying hands on twins backs to check they were breathing,but not concerned enough to voice her concerns to the police.

cockerspaniel wrote:
Then tell me how did he manage to hide her so well, on foot,at night,in a small village he probably didnt know very well,probably in some form of distress,to his OWN DAUGHTER.....never to be found.....then go of for a jog and a game of tennis a few days later?   And i will say it again,with no spade,just to rule out a beach burial.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Because if it was an accident and there was no time to do anything else, I'm sure Gerry would have just sat there with a body waiting for the police, career soon to be in tatters and the strong possibility of jail time looming over his head.

I'm not saying that it was an accident and Gerry panicked.  I'm saying that I don't understand at all why yourself and others think the 'blind panic' theory is so impossible to consider.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

cockerspaniel wrote:
Then tell me how did he manage to hide her so well, on foot,at night,in a small village he probably didnt know very well,probably in some form of distress,to his OWN DAUGHTER.....never to be found.....then go of for a jog and a game of tennis a few days later?   And i will say it again,with no spade,just to rule out a beach burial.

Everything you've said here is highly subjective, and there's no real answer for that.  I'm not going to be able to give you an answer you like, because what you've said above is the way that you feel.  In other words, there are no facts presented, so I have nothing to refute.


REPLY

This has nothing to do with how i feel,this is about the practicality of your "Blind panic" situation. Its easy to refute my point,but i would appreciate it if you could give me some sort of credible response thats not to far beyond the realms of possibility.I dont have to like it but at least I get to make that choice and not have it made for me.

Obviously, regarding the question about the spade, I wasn't being serious.  Suggesting that someone couldn't have concealed a body without taking a spade is like saying that someone couldn't rob a bank without a black and white stripey jumper, a black eye-mask, and a big bag that says 'SWAG' on it.



REPLY 

I know you were joking,no probs.


But you do concede that more people try to conceal a body with the help of a spade than people rob banks in "a black and white stripey jumper, a black eye-mask, and a big bag that says 'SWAG' on it"  

specially if they were seen heading in the direction of the beach!

btw,am enjoying the friendly debate  

ultimaThule wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Because if it was an accident and there was no time to do anything else, I'm sure Gerry would have just sat there with a body waiting for the police, career soon to be in tatters and the strong possibility of jail time looming over his head.

I'm not saying that it was an accident and Gerry panicked.  I'm saying that I don't understand at all why yourself and others think the 'blind panic' theory is so impossible to consider.

As their various appearances on celebrity sofas around the globe demonstrate, neither GM or his spouse do 'panic'.   For a glimpse of the true nature of the beast see here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I've yet to read a theory which explains why there would be need to conceal the body of a child who sustained accidental injury, or injuries, which proved fatal.  

It would indeed be an unfortunate parent who lost their career or found themselves facing the prospect of jail time because their child met with a fatal accident of the kind which happens to numerous children both in Portugal and the UK on an annual basis.

REPLY


Maybe we are thinking along the same lines, I doubt there was a "genuine" accident in this case.Besides dont most people head to the hospital when theres been an accident and not to the beach? Confronted with a genuine accident im sure most people would do ALL they could to save their childs life before worrying if they might get the sack.

ultimaThule wrote:
As their various appearances on celebrity sofas around the globe demonstrate, neither GM or his spouse do 'panic'.   For a glimpse of the true nature of the beast see here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I've yet to read a theory which explains why there would be need to conceal the body of a child who sustained accidental injury, or injuries, which proved fatal.  

It would indeed be an unfortunate parent who lost their career or found themselves facing the prospect of jail time because their child met with a fatal accident of the kind which happens to numerous children both in Portugal and the UK on an annual basis.

cockerspaniel wrote:
btw,am enjoying the friendly debate 

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:
As their various appearances on celebrity sofas around the globe demonstrate, neither GM or his spouse do 'panic'.   For a glimpse of the true nature of the beast see here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I've yet to read a theory which explains why there would be need to conceal the body of a child who sustained accidental injury, or injuries, which proved fatal.  

It would indeed be an unfortunate parent who lost their career or found themselves facing the prospect of jail time because their child met with a fatal accident of the kind which happens to numerous children both in Portugal and the UK on an annual basis.

This is an argument from incredulity, finished off with a Straw Man.  If a child dies of an accident in your care, and that child may have been sedated, and you may have been seated several minutes' walk away all evening, I can't see how you can seriously say that this would not get you into trouble, i.e. jail time.


REPLY

Yes there may be a possibility of jailtime,but surely you would do all you can 1st to see if your child could be saved before something more sinister came to mind,ie call an ambulance? or one of your group would suggest this,i doubt that there would be an immediate "pact" of silence,especially between people who are mostly aquaintances at best.

cockerspaniel wrote:
Yes there may be a possibility of jailtime,but surely you would do all you can 1st to see if your child could be saved before something more sinister came to mind,ie call an ambulance? or one of your group would suggest this,i doubt that there would be an immediate "pact" of silence,especially between people who are mostly aquaintances at best.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:
As their various appearances on celebrity sofas around the globe demonstrate, neither GM or his spouse do 'panic'.   For a glimpse of the true nature of the beast see here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I've yet to read a theory which explains why there would be need to conceal the body of a child who sustained accidental injury, or injuries, which proved fatal.  

It would indeed be an unfortunate parent who lost their career or found themselves facing the prospect of jail time because their child met with a fatal accident of the kind which happens to numerous children both in Portugal and the UK on an annual basis.

This is an argument from incredulity, finished off with a Straw Man.  If a child dies of an accident in your care, and that child may have been sedated, and you may have been seated several minutes' walk away all evening, I can't see how you can seriously say that this would not get you into trouble, i.e. jail time.

Tangled Web wrote:Interesting...

Whatliesbehind the sofa - If your theory is correct then why so many discrepancies in the Tapas statements prior to the Thursday?? It seems they couldn't get their timelines straight the whole holiday.

Also, how and when would they have cleaned the apartment so thoroughly that there was virtually no trace of MBM?

Just a few questions that popped into my head whilst reading   

ultimaThule wrote:
Any credulity in this matter is more properly attributed to those who would term such an event an 'accident'.  

If a parent sedates a child for a non-medical reason and the child subsequently sustains a fatal injury which is unlikely to have occurred had it not been under the influence of a sleep-inducing drug this is not an 'accident' -  it is manslaughter, albeit some may be of the opinion that the parent's act in giving their child non-essential medication is tantamount to murder.  In addition, there would of course be issues of negligence arising from where that parent was, and what they were doing, while the child they had unlawfully drugged met with an untimely death.

If such a parent subsequently concealed the body of the child for fear of prosecution and its consequences and was subsequently tried and convicted, I would expect them to claim that panic 'drove them to it' in mitigation of their crime(s), but this wouldn't wash with me nor would I expect it to reduce the sentence handed down by any judge who has experience of the lies criminals tell to elicit sympathy and, more particularly, if that parent was shown to have benefitted financially from a gullible public while attempting to cover their heinous act by claiming by that a person, or persons, unknown had 'taken' their child.

I have said before, and repeat again, that I cannot buy into any theory that has individuals such as the McCanns and/or their doctor friends being panicked into hasty action and, IMO, any such notion is as probable as a herd of flying pigs accompanying the spy planes which are reported to have been performing manoeuvres over Luz on the night of 3 May 2007.

Casey5 wrote:The reactions of the McCanns in both scenarios are
weird.
If Madeleine had a fall or whatever and was found dead, then even thinking about what the outcome for them would be, should, I say should be the last thing on their minds.
Most people would be so distraught and guilt-ridden they would be unable and also unwilling to plan anything, let alone the removal and hiding of the body of their daughter.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

cockerspaniel wrote:
Yes there may be a possibility of jailtime,but surely you would do all you can 1st to see if your child could be saved before something more sinister came to mind,ie call an ambulance? or one of your group would suggest this,i doubt that there would be an immediate "pact" of silence,especially between people who are mostly aquaintances at best.

What use would an ambulance be if the child was already dead?

Why is a pact of silence among people who sit at a meal while waiting for someone to collect a dead child more likely?

You asked earlier what may have happened.  I know I'm not going to convince anyone who's mind is already mind up, but I'll give it a go, and give the shortest version I can.

WHAT FOLLOWS HERE IS MY OPINION AND MINE ONLY!!!

Madeleine may have fallen behind the couch while sedated, and lay dead for some time.  The accounts of people 'checking' are from the Tapas group, and may be false.  Certainly, Jane Tanner's sighting of an abductor looked very dubious for years, and has now been rewritten by SY.  Matthew Oldfield twisted and turned about whether the curtains were open on his supposed 9:30 check.  The statements of the Tapas bar staff indicate that the Tapas group were gone except for Dianne Webster between 9:30 and 10:00.  My theory is that Kate went to do her check immediately as Gerry returned at 9:30, where the official story has it that MO stopped Kate from going (for no apparent reason, and very unlikely - a relative stranger is not the best person to look in on a child who has trouble sleeping).  Madeleine had been put in the adult's bed, next to the window.  Kate couldn't find Madeleine, and didn't think to look behind the couch - because she was in a panic, and was looking for a living child.  None of the Tapas bar staff corroborate the story of Kate returning to the table and saying 'They've taken her'.  One of the statements says that the whole group apart from DW left a very short while after Kate left.  Maybe she had her mobile on her and rang someone at the table.  Immediately, they start running around looking for Maddy, assuming that Kate is correct and that she is not present in apartment 5A.  The Tapas bar staff corroborate the initial searching of the Tapas group.

Gerry is seen rushing into the pool area, heading towards the childrens' play area.  That's exactly where I would look - somewhere that Maddy was most familiar with.

From the rogatory interview of J.R.Salcedas (waiter):

'I ran out of the Tapas and noticed that some of the childcare works of the Mark Warner had begun to arrive. At the point I left the Tapas I heard a scream from a woman I did not know. I do not know who screamed, but I had never heard a similar cry. I cannot even describe it but thought it had come from the child's mother. I went to the reception with one of the child care workers whose name I do not remember. One of the employees looked to be organizing the searches and told us the name of the child.'

The scream may have been Kate finding Maddy - dead - behind the couch.  At the same time, people outside of the Tapas group are forming search parties.  The McCanns have two choices - call it off, and face the law, or continue as if she had not been found.  Of course, the latter requires that the body be removed and concealed.  At roughly 9:45-9:50, Gerry comes to a decision to do this - possibly at this point Kate becomes furious and has to be held back, causing the bruising on her wrists and upper arms.  Gerry heads towards the wasteland to the west, but is unable to find a way inside through the boarding.  He makes a snap decision to go towards the beach, and is seen moments later by the Smith family.  He manages to conceal the body - I don't know where, obviously if I did the police would be notified and this whole farce would have been over years ago - and perhaps phones back to the apartment to tell them that he has been seen, probably not to the hysterical Kate.  Back at 5A, the first timeline is written on the sticker book cover, and they concoct the sighting of Tannerman.

They write on the first timeline:

'Jerry 9:10-9:15 in tv room + all well ? did he check'

This makes me think of a couple of things.

1. Perhaps Gerry had just watched TV in the 'tv room' on his 9:05 check.  Jane Tanner said in the documentary that Kate was wondering if Gerry had been watching the football as he'd taken so long'.  Perhaps he sat on the couch, unaware that his daughter was lying dead or dying on the floor behind him.

2. ? did he check - indicates to me that Gerry was not present when this timeline was written.  If he had been present, there would be no need to write this, they could just ask.  Additionally, the use of the third person indicates that he wasn't there.

I think the second timeline was written when Gerry returned.  Why write two timelines?  They are very similar.  One is pre-Gerry, the other approved-by-Gerry.  Funnily enough, the approved-by one has 'GERALD' written on it in capitals.

And now for a quick break  


REPLY

Lots of good points in your theory WLBTS,will give it some thought.

The main sticking point for me is,how do you hide a body so well in a small area, in such a short space of time that nearly 7 years later its not been fund?

Will be back for more tomorrow.

cockerspaniel wrote:
The main sticking point for me is,how do you hide a body so well in a small area, in such a short space of time that nearly 7 years later its not been fund?