Why was 'the man from the creche' carrying his daughter home in her pyjamas?

diatribe wrote:
However, I think you may wish to give further consideration to the 'accident' hypothesis. If it were in fact an accident, no matter how many were involved, why would there be the need to dispose of Madeleine's body and concort a kidnapping story. The only logical explanation I can think of is to avoid an autopsy examination and the only reason I can think of for wishing to avoid the aforementioned is that it wasn't an accident.

I agree to avoid an autopsy but I can think of two more possibilities why that would be desirable: To hide the presence of drugs that shouldn't be there in her blood stream or to hide the physical signs of abuse of some description. There is also a third option, that IMO is more fanciful - to hide the fact that it wasn't Madeleine

AndyB wrote: The third option, accidental death, is more likely than the second one proposed by Diatribe; that Madeleine was killed by one of the T7 and that the McCann's conspired to cover it up

I didn't propose that, Andy, there's a subtle difference between proposing and denigrating.:)

AndyB wrote:

There is also a third option, that IMO is more fanciful - to hide the fact that it wasn't Madeleine

Then who was it and where's Madeleine?

AndyB Yes I overlooked that, your reference to the less probable option. My example was purely for illustration of course. 
 
I mean, a toddler, completely under the control and responsability of the parents has disappeared, while they alledgedly lie trough their teeth about what happened, about everything, alledgedly make millions from it, while the toddler probably had died, can you imagine thinking there must have been an unfortunate accident? 
 
I can't.

diatribe wrote:

AndyB wrote:

There is also a third option, that IMO is more fanciful - to hide the fact that it wasn't Madeleine

Then who was it and where's Madeleine?

I did say it was fanciful but stand by the other two as realistic possibilities

MarcoG wrote:I mean, a toddler, completely under the control and responsibility of the parents has disappeared, while they alledgedly lie trough their teeth about what happened, about everything, alledgedly make millions from it, while the toddler probably had died, can you imagine thinking there must have been an unfortunate accident?

 
Not in those narrow terms I can't, yet accidental death is the conclusion that Goncalo Amaral came to and I have no reason to doubt him.

I can imagine that the parents of a toddler who has died unexpectedly behaving the way that the McCanns did if they had something to fear from an autopsy and were reasonably certain of high level support for the cover up.

AndyB wrote:

MarcoG wrote:I mean, a toddler, completely under the control and responsibility of the parents has disappeared, while they alledgedly lie trough their teeth about what happened, about everything, alledgedly make millions from it, while the toddler probably had died, can you imagine thinking there must have been an unfortunate accident?

 
Not in those narrow terms I can't, yet accidental death is the conclusion that Goncalo Amaral came to and I have no reason to doubt him.

I can imagine that the parents of a toddler who has died unexpectedly behaving the way that the McCanns did if they had something to fear from an autopsy and were reasonably certain of high level support for the cover up.

I can think of a lot of reasons for Amaral not to state anything other than an accident, but surely anything is possible, maybe it was an accident, maybe there was an abduction.

AndyB wrote:

 and were reasonably certain of high level support for the cover up.

Even Vladimir Putin couldn't have anticipated the high level of support the McCanns have received, Andy. :)

MarcoG wrote:
I can think of a lot of reasons for Amaral not to state anything other than an accident,

Indeed, Marco, he may have had libel on his mind.

diatribe wrote:

MarcoG wrote:
I can think of a lot of reasons for Amaral not to state anything other than an accident,

Indeed, Marco, he may have had libel on his mind.

Yes. And, possibly, I speculate, he might at some stage have hoped someone would come forward about the lesser crimes of neglect and concealment of a dead body. Amaral couldn't prove anything more deliberate anyway based on the original interrupted investigation.

MarcoG wrote:
Yes. And, possibly, I speculate, he might at some stage have hoped someone would come forward about the lesser crimes of neglect and concealment of a dead body. Amaral couldn't prove anything more deliberate anyway based on the original interrupted investigation.

The stakes are even higher now, Marco, because if they had knowledge at the time of what actually transpired vis a vis Madeleine, then their Foundation Fund is fraudulent. They would get  circa 10 yrs upon conviction of  instigating a fraudulent fund due to the aggravating circumstances. They would also face Confiscation proceedings involving £millions under the 2002 POCA. (The real sting of sentences in lieu of payment regarding this act is that there's no remission. ie. if one receives an additional 10 yrs. one serves 10 yrs with the money still owing upon release)

These penalties would exceed those of any manslaughter and concealment of a body convictions that would ensue from a successful Portuguese prosecution for the aforementioned.

I've read some time ago, that it could be even up to 20 years for fraud.

Every time and again, Al Capone comes to mind ...

@diatribe A successful prosecution for fraud in England would have an even worse outcome for them, but might need a conviction in Portugal first?

diatribe wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:
***
I repeat one of my older theories [and not the only one ...].
If Madeleine had a fatal ACCIDENT on Wednesday evening May 2, but was not discovered behind the sofa, by her returning late, tipsy, quarreling parents until the next morning, an autopsy would have revealed the actual time of death and they would have been charged with gross neglect. Careers over.

But would it have warranted disposing of the body and concocting a kidnapping story? Then we're back to Catriona Baker providing the McCanns with a timeline alibi for the 3rd. I've always personally thought that the Met. police should be retarding timelines. as opposed to advancing them.

In my opinion the dynamics of the groups relationships are worth a look.

The Paynes knew the McCann children well. Jane Tanner didn't know GM that well but ROB did. Most of the women ( with exception of Mrs McCann and possibly JT of course) didn't check a child that night. So all the blokes knew each other and some of the women knew some of the other blokes well or hardly at all. But basically the score was 3 men and 2 women who allegedly checked a child that night. The problem is that of the 2 women none of them saw Madeleine and of the 3 men only 1 saw Madeliene ( her father) beyond 8.30 pm.

M.O. didn't know the McCann children at all and he referred to that fact in one of his statements.

When the alarm was raised at 10pm according to the statements ( although Mrs Fenn infers a different time - 10.30pm?) not all the friends dashed into 5a. The depositions about the raised shutters varies with time and the only independent witness at 10.10pm according to herself was Amy Tierney who searched 5a alongside Mrs McCann.  The thing is for me is when the other members of the Tapas group flew over to 5a in a panic who actually went inside to see the raised shutters? DP was there when Sylvie Batista arrived and Amy Tierney was there before her. We have then Mr and Mrs McCann, Amy Tierney, David Payne? Fiona Payne? and eventually Sylvie Batista. What were the other 6 doing at those times? JT says she was at her apartment having replaced ROB so where were the other 5 people when the alarm was raised and did they enter and witness these blessed shutters in the up position? There was a lot of talk of testing the shutters but what did any of the other 5 see? The thing is is that with the exception of Amy Tierney no-one else seems to have been a witness to the shutters being up. Apart from the parents of course. Therefore; basically if the other 5 who didn't enter 5a to see the shutters up relied on the witnessing of the others who were in 5a ( 4 related people and 1 unrelated ) then this must be more belief than experience of what happened at that time. Which means to me that not all of the Tapas 9 are well informed of what happened that night they just believe it via others and trust that they are telling the truth. If they read on the net though their former
beliefs may be tested.

The disconcerting fly in the ointment though is JT and the original bundleman. That is a link that is now not required for those in the know
as it is disputed as to who this JT bundleman was/is. That is for discussion between DI Redwood et al.

The thing is with this revelation is what did the now known ( not my words - Redwoods words ) bundleman see at that time? Was it two static men chatting alongside a trolley  and a woman flip- flopping up the road or some drunken Portuguese  bloke with a white circle on his back not carrying a child muttering in broken English to himself about the positioning of the bins in the street for the lads to collect in the early hours of the following day? Redwood is privy to that information now that he has dismissed JT and found a new credible witness. He can't have his cake and eat it unless he wants to shove the removal time further forward to say 9.50 -9.55pm in order to meet  the 9 Smiths. No-one else knows what he knows so why the silence?

Oh and by the way the Smiths didn't see this man so did Smellyman take a different route? If so which way did he go and who saw him?

Just an opinion though.

XTC, I read in one of the Tapas group statements (sorry, can't remember which one) that only David Payne initially went into the McCann's apartment. Diane Webster remained at the Tapas and Jane Tanner stayed in her own apartment, the others just gathered at the foot of the patio stairs, where Payne was talking to them from the balcony, before going off to check on their own children or search around the Ocean Club.

Consequently Payne IMO is the most likely of the group to have known the situation. He is also the last person the have seen Madeleine, other than her family, that evening. He was spotted on the balcony of 5A  by Mrs Fenn at 7 pm. 

NB Although I can believe that Payne, as Gerry's friend, knew what had happened to Madeleine, I can't believe that he was actually responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, because I can't imagine for one minute the McCanns covering up for him if he were responsible. Unless of course Payne had given sedatives to the McCanns in which case they would all be responsible.

suzyjohnson wrote: [...]
Consequently Payne IMO is the most likely of the group to have known the situation. He is also the last person the have seen Madeleine, other than her family, that evening. He was spotted on the balcony of 5A  by Mrs Fenn at 7 pm. [...]

***
That's new to me. Where can I find that in Mrs. Fenn's statements?

MarcoG wrote:@diatribe A successful prosecution for fraud in England would have an even worse outcome for them, but might need a conviction in Portugal first.

It will almost certainly require a conviction in Portugal for complicity either in murder or manslaughter, Marco, although it is my belief that there would be a slightly better than 50% chance of a successful prosecution for fraud in the UK, as it stands.

The problem being of course, the British authorities most definitely do not want to prosecute the McCanns, period. In fact they are moving heaven and earth to ensure that not only are they not prosecuted here, they're never prosecuted in Portugal either.

Châtelaine wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote: [...]
Consequently Payne IMO is the most likely of the group to have known the situation. He is also the last person the have seen Madeleine, other than her family, that evening. He was spotted on the balcony of 5A  by Mrs Fenn at 7 pm. [...]

***
That's new to me. Where can I find that in Mrs. Fenn's statements?

I read this several days ago Chatelaine, I'll try and remember where and let you know

suzyjohnson wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote: [...]
Consequently Payne IMO is the most likely of the group to have known the situation. He is also the last person the have seen Madeleine, other than her family, that evening. He was spotted on the balcony of 5A  by Mrs Fenn at 7 pm. [...]

***
That's new to me. Where can I find that in Mrs. Fenn's statements?

I read this several days ago Chatelaine, I'll try and remember where and let you know

***
Please do. Thanks in advance.

suzyjohnson wrote:XTC, I read in one of the Tapas group statements (sorry, can't remember which one) that only David Payne initially went into the McCann's apartment. Diane Webster remained at the Tapas and Jane Tanner stayed in her own apartment, the others just gathered at the foot of the patio stairs, where Payne was talking to them from the balcony, before going off to check on their own children or search around the Ocean Club.

Consequently Payne IMO is the most likely of the group to have known the situation. He is also the last person the have seen Madeleine, other than her family, that evening. He was spotted on the balcony of 5A  by Mrs Fenn at 7 pm. 

NB Although I can believe that Payne, as Gerry's friend, knew what had happened to Madeleine, I can't believe that he was actually responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, because I can't imagine for one minute the McCanns covering up for him if he were responsible. Unless of course Payne had given sedatives to the McCanns in which case they would all be responsible.

suzyjohnson: Thanks for the info.

I take it that the T9 may have been fully paid up members of The Noise Abatement Society because Mrs " plummy voiced " Fenn's statement
says the commotion ocurred at around 10.30pm. Shown below with credit to the maddiecasefiles.com: Apologies for the big letters( I don't know what I've done there - but shouting was the name of the game, possibly  this may have been a silent abduction? )

p.s Carole Tranmers statement is very interesting also. Who was the mystery young copper with a laptop? The interviewing officer didn't seem concerned about this fellow.

On the 3rd May she received a visit from her niece Carole during the morning, who said that when she was on her terrace she saw a male individual looking into the McCann’s apartment, a situation which has been told to the police, her cousin even made a photo fit.
During the day nothing unusual happened, until almost 22.30 when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out “we have let her down” which she repeated several times, quite upset. Mrs Fenn then saw that it was the mother of little Madeleine who was shouting furiously. Upon leaning over the terrace, after having seen the mother, Mrs Fenn asked the father, Gerry, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted. When asked, she replied that she did not leave her apartment, just spoke to Gerry from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below. She found it strange that Gerry when said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios. At that moment she offered Gerry help, saying that he could use her phone to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done. It was just after 22.30.
She said that after the mother’s shouts, she had seen many people in the streets looking for the girl. She also refers to an episode when Gerry was speaking to a policeman and he refused to recognised the police force, saying that more agents of authority were needed to carry out the search.
When asked, she replied that on 3rd May she did not hear any noise from the McCann apartment, not even the opening of doors. She also said that before hearing the shouts she was watching television, as she often stays up late.

Châtelaine wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote: [...]
Consequently Payne IMO is the most likely of the group to have known the situation. He is also the last person the have seen Madeleine, other than her family, that evening. He was spotted on the balcony of 5A  by Mrs Fenn at 7 pm. [...]

***
That's new to me. Where can I find that in Mrs. Fenn's statements?

I have looked but can't see this in Mrs Fenn's statement. I'm trying to think where I have heard this, possibly in one of Amaral's interviews? And I think it has been discussed on here too? Sorry I can't help more than this.

What I did read when I was trying to find out, was that KM said that they had initially intended to take the children to the playground that evening. Is it possible that Gerry really did send Payne round to help take the children, but that Payne arrived at the apartment to discover there had been an accident, and so he went back to the tennis court to tell Gerry he should return immediately?