When did poor Maddie die?

But I struggle with the 28th 29th April belief as they would need nerves of steel....to keep up the pretense....

Not just them, the friends too.....uhm uhm...hard to digest.

I'm still open minded about this - arguments for a number of view. I've actually voted for the 3rd MAY - based on Amaral's conclusions. I tend to think he knows a lot more than has been made public. I cant imagine he would not consider an earlier time of death yet he was firm in his opinions. However, as someone else wondered - has he now changed his opinion...?
Also I base my vote on the ambiguity of DP's visit to Kate.
Was it for 2 minutes or 20 minutes? Did he go inside or stay at the door. Why such confusion over a small thing unless something to hide.

However, there are so many arguments for death occurring prior to the 3rd MAY..
RM returning seemingly urgently to Pdl.
Creche records being not straightforward.
Cleaning of apartment
Last photo
Gerry's / RMs whereabouts afternoon of 2nd May
The phone records.

So, I really do not know which I prefer.  One thing though - I believe the neglect was a red herring and I do not believe she died through falling accidentally whilst there was no supervision and was not found for some time.  I believe strongly and 100 percent there was an adult  or more than one adult around when she died.
Of course its all my opinion and thoughts based on what I've read.

I agree with Helenmeg about there being an adult there when Madeleine died....I think!

As some have suggested (and they could well be right)Madeleine died at the very start of the holiday. But if that were true then why would the McCann's change their routine from the rest of the group? That is implying that they were trying to conceal the death from the rest of the group. If that were the case that would mean the friends there were unaware of the scam. But evidence collected in statements( changing statements) would suggest otherwise.  JT and her partner, DP in particular.

Hicks wrote:I agree with Helenmeg about there being an adult there when Madeleine died....I think!

As some have suggested (and they could well be right)Madeleine died at the very start of the holiday. But if that were true then why would the McCann's change their routine from the rest of the group? That is implying that they were trying to conceal the death from the rest of the group. If that were the case that would mean the friends there were unaware of the scam. But evidence collected in statements( changing statements) would suggest otherwise.  JT and her partner, DP in particular.

I think it would be under GM's orders and agreed that the rest of the group should be seen to have as much as a normal / routinely holiday as possible.

The Mccanns had to alter certain aspects of there own routine. Simply because MBM was no longer alive..

The second option seems plausable to me. Mr & Mrs staggers back hammered and flops into bed not realising MBM has had a fatal accident behind the sofa. Decovery her next morning. And immediately thinking how the hell can we explain this, when the Portuguese would be able to work out she's been deceased for hours etc etc.

Therefore they have then cococted varius stories to cover anything happening a day earlier. On top of the abduction nonsense.

All in my opinion of course.

Yes. Although I am having a hard time trying to articulate my case for Easter 2007.

I don't believe the aeroplane steps video nor the bus video were from that holiday.

Not one mention of Easter in Kate's book.

My thinking is perhaps the players got played.


Gerry's stolen wallet - 30 euros?

Returned to him in coins, perhaps.

sharonl wrote:

Poe wrote:I've voted - some other date.

I don't think Mrs Fenn heard Madeleine crying - I think Mrs Fenn heard Kate crying, "Maddie, Maddie". Maybe it happened earlier that day but, by the night of the first, Madeleine was already long gone.

I've just had a thought - when you have a bunch of young kids together and one of them starts wailing, it sets the others off as well. So if we are to believe the McCanns when they say it was Madeleine who was crying, Mrs Fenn should have heard at least two little voices (Sean and I) but more likely three. Kids that age don't cry quietly.

You voted "some other date", if that is correct, then Madeleine could not have been crying on that night which leaves the twins.

Mrs Fenn made a point of saying that the child she heard was a young child of 3 or 4 not a baby of 2 or under.

But whatever happened to Madeleine, if the event had occurred before 3rd May, would the McCanns or the rest of the group, risk any harm coming to the other children by leaving them home alone?

Either the McCanns are telling the truth about the kids being home alone and Mrs Fenn did hear Madeleine cry, or she died earlier in the week and the home alone story was created just made up to add credibility to the abduction scenario.  

I don't think it was a child crying.

I think Mrs Fenn heard a high-pitched female voice crying "Maddie" but assumed that it was a little girl crying "Daddy". That is why the McCanns insist that she was always Madeleine.

It would tie-in with Madeleine being dead or mortally injured before the evening of the 1st.

I don't believe the home-alone story at all.

But, as with everyone else on this thread, I'm just proporting a theory and could very well be wrong.

MRNOODLES wrote:The second option seems plausable to me.  Mr & Mrs staggers back hammered and flops into bed not realising MBM has had a fatal accident behind the sofa.  Decovery her next morning. And immediately thinking how the hell can we explain this, when the Portuguese would be able to work out she's been deceased for hours etc etc.

Therefore they have then cococted varius stories to cover anything happening a day earlier.  On top of the abduction nonsense.

All in my opinion of course.

Would the rest of the Tapas group really stay silent for all this time and have this pact if option 2 was the case.

'That couple that we are on holiday with and don't really know that well... They got hammered and never checked on the kids when they got in. Turns out the eldest one was found dead behind the sofa and been there since the night before. So what we need to do now is lie to everyone, our own families and friends, the police and keep up this lie for the next 7 plus years and have a pact. We need to get really involved and pretend it was an abduction to save them. Doesn't matter about us as long as we can help K and G cover it up'

Can't see that myself.

A lot more complex and deeper that IMO.

I also think a good indicator of death is the phone records.  The moment when abnormal patterns of phone  calls / phone use begins could well be a good signal of when death occurred. 

You would expect to see a sudden flurry of texts / calls.  Obviously they would soon realise a need to hide any phone records but when the incident first happened you would surely see a period of abnormal phone use.

It s ages since I last looked at the phone records so must revisit these soon

I just cant get my head around a situation to hide oneschild ,what ever way the demise happened . It seems so un natural thing to do for any reason other than  I cant say the word here ,would not be good to ,I think you will know what it might mean .joyce1938

missbeetle wrote:Yes. Although I am having a hard time trying to articulate my case for Easter 2007.

I don't believe the aeroplane steps video nor the bus video were from that holiday.

Not one mention of Easter in Kate's book.

Sorry, this is a bit off topic. I think that the only brief mention of Donegal in the book is in a list of places that the family visited before PDL.

Is it therefore a forum myth that Kate said that it was the first time that she had ever been to Donegal? As opposed to the media reports which said that a gathering of the clans was a regular event.

With regard to the choice/wording of the options, may I ask why one opton has the added text, 'in the hellish lair'? I do not understand why that is added. It makes for no other options for being alive, yet there is an option for, 'any other death scenario' plus multiple choices for death. Seems a bit biased - doesn't it (from a neutral perspective)?

Please don't ask me to justify how or where she could be alive outside of a hellish lair, I don't need to and that's not the point (or my belief). It just seems to be a bit like a red top type survey. Alternatively, it could have been titled as, the options for one particular side (with a throw in for humour).

Should the horrible nasty x party be voted in for their stupid views, or should the nice Y party with their wonderful ideas be voted in? You decide.

I think options presented for vote should be either full, open and fair to all (i.e. thay could be considered fair outside a forum such as this) or targetted for a particular reason (e.g. to a targert audience and explained as such).

Another option is to offer a percentage breakdown, as I suspect many people's views are split. If someone is 50/50 or 70/30 or whatever between 2 options (2nd/3rd May or even between alive or dead or don't know), how should they vote?

Thanks

The poll results surprised me a bit. Far fewer than I imagined opted for the evening of the 3rd, and quite a lot more than I thought went for April sometime. Personally I struggle with the very early scenario. It means that the Maddie-is-alive charade has to be maintained for so much longer, and there would perhaps be less motivation for others to help provide cover. The closer it happens to the 3rd, the lower the risk of the story falling apart.

But with all the theories on here, each date has merits. I was just interested to see what happened if we actually had to place a bet on one of them.

Bishop Brennan wrote:

But with all the theories on here, each date has merits.  I was just interested to see what happened if we actually had to place a bet on one of them.

Don't bet on the "hellish lair" one if you expect a big pay out !

My gamble is on the beginning of the holiday, or even before. All the emphasis on confusion about Maddie's identity and the absence of proof. Nobody from that week has met her. She's only a pink image to any people involved. I feel sad for  Maddie.

My problem is this:

If it was an accident, however it was caused, why would they need to turn an accident scene into a homicide scene?

If Maddie fell, banged her head, broke her neck etc why cover it up?
Accidents happen as we have read all too often in the media, and, being medics they would have seen the gamut of injuries to children by any and all means when working in ER and paediatrics.
Accidents can happen even if the parent is right next to them.

If she fell and died, they could have claimed  they didn't check the children because it was late and they were drunk/tired, they stuck their heads round the door and all was quiet and they saw 3 lumps and bumps in their beds and assumed everything was alright and when they went to waken them in the morning Maddie was cold and lifeless having gotten back into bed after her fall.

They could have claimed she got out of bed whilst they were sleeping and fell behind the sofa and when they woke up in the morning and couldn't find her, they searched the apartment and found her behind the sofa dead.

If she died of an overdose, again, they could have claimed she got into some pills thinking they were candy and ate them, they didn't know until they found her cold and lifeless.

All are plausible and believeable excuses so why did they stage a fake abduction?

Why was it so important that an autopsy could not be allowed to be performed?

If it was a head injury, an accidental fall may have supported their claim.
If traces of drugs were found then it could have supported their claim of accidental ingestion.
It happens all the time.

What would an autopsy have found that couldn't be explained away?
Cuts and bruises in strange places or more than to be expected with a toddler,
Bruises in the shape of fingers, hands or feet?
old healed or healing injuries that when checked with her medical history had not been treated in a hospital ( leading to questions why even though they are doctors)
Evidence of abuse either old or recent hence their claim she was taken by a paedophile.

Whatever it was, it was vital no autopsy be performed on fresh remains, possibly no autopsy on old or skeltonised remains dince bones can tell a story and if broken before death would show evidence of healing or having healed.

Soft tissue may have  decomposed but given the temps there and the general environment it is possible that some mummification could take place.
Hair and teeth are often the last to break down and they can reveal a lot such as long term sedation etc.

It would be interesting to learn if intact hairs had been found in the trunk as if they got there after Maddie died and were hers, there would be evidence of corpse banding and a bucket load of awkward questions for the mccanns.

Personal i would haul them all in at the same time to different stations and make it clear they are facing charges of accessory after the fact, conspiracy, perverting the course of justice, obstruction of justice, fraud etc and face a long time behind bars if they do start co-operating

Hobs wrote:Personal i would haul them all in at the same time to different stations and make it clear they are facing charges of accessory after the fact, conspiracy, perverting the course of justice, obstruction of justice, fraud etc and face a long time behind bars if they do start co-operating

This case would be solved within the hour if that was to ever happen!!

I think I will have to abstain as I think Madeleine was in PdL and I am fairly certain that the playground picture of her coming out of the playhouse is authentic about the right age and size and weather looks right too! However, I don't know what day this photo was taken and also I want to support GA in his summation that it was the 3rd May. But this doesn't allow for the cleaning up which is supposed to have happened.

I can't decide on a date. I'd be inclined to believe it was the 3rd except that it would take a long time to clear every thing up, dispose of the body, think up alibis etc. On the other hand, going for an earlier date raises the problem that she was seen in the creche. Unless we accept that she died on the 28th/29th and another child was substituted for her. But that would involve incredible risks. It's hardly credible that another holidaymaker would hand over their child as part of a cover-up- who would want to run the risk of being an accessory to a crime? (I must admit, I think the evidence indicates it was an accident. Presumably they covered it up because of what an autopsy might reveal - what that was, it's not pleasant to speculate....I guess most people know what I mean.....). On the other hand, if a substitution was arranged in advance, then that implies premeditation, and a high degree of planning. But for what purpose? And the more people are involved in a plot, the greater the risk that someone will let something slip. So I find that idea difficult. Maybe the creche records are just dodgy because the creche staff weren't being very careful about filling them in, and then, when the police arrived, they decided they'd better get them fixed in a hurry! But it seems impossible to decide on the basis of current evidence.

I think it could of been late morning of the third, allowing for cleaning and a plan. I don't think many of the tapas7 know much cause it would be too much of a risk. IMO something dark has had to be hidden forever, otherwise I think they would've given poor maddie a descent burial. Going by the lengths that these parents have, I don't want to imagine what has happened to this innocent child (IMO ofcourse) if maddie turned up now, I would be over the moon. 

puzzled wrote:I can't decide on a date. I'd be inclined to believe it was the 3rd except that it would take a long time to clear every thing up, dispose of the body, think up alibis etc. On the other hand, going for an earlier date raises the problem that she was seen in the creche. Unless we accept that she died on the 28th/29th and another child was substituted for her. But that would involve incredible risks. It's hardly credible that another holidaymaker would hand over their child as part of a cover-up- who would want to run the risk of being an accessory to a crime? (I must admit, I think the evidence indicates it was an accident. Presumably they covered it up because of what an autopsy might reveal - what that was, it's not pleasant to speculate....I guess most people know what I mean.....). On the other hand, if a substitution was arranged in advance, then that implies premeditation, and a high degree of planning. But for what purpose? And the more people are involved in a plot, the greater the risk that someone will let something slip. So I find that idea difficult. Maybe the creche records are just dodgy because the creche staff weren't being very careful about filling them in, and then, when the police arrived, they decided they'd better get them fixed in a hurry! But it seems impossible to decide on the basis of current evidence.

Puzzled

I once thought that the crèche was a large room with lots of children of all ages and many nannies with a separate reception area.  Research proved me wrong.  

The crèches are scattered over the resort, one near the tapas, one near the millennium restaurant, on top of reception - I think that there may be a fourth.

Anyway, these individual crèches are further split into groups with a maximum of 7 children to a group and that group allocated to one particular nanny for the week.  Each group also had its own separate room

Cat Baker was Madeleines' nanny for the week, she ran the Lobster group.  My understanding is that when a child is dropped of at the crèche, the nanny in charge (Cat Baker, in Madeleines case) has the parent to sign the register.  A child is later collected from the crèche, or more often than not, from the nanny at high tea which takes place near the tapas area.  If that is true, then the crèche records are the responsibility of the nanny in charge of the group and are obviously being taken out of the crèche for signature when the kids are handed back at tea time.

The crèche records would be passed to management, but what would be the point in these being monitored on a regular basis?  There is no benefit to be derived from that activity.

Also, you may note that the crèche records were very shoddily maintained, with even Cat herself signing the kids out.

There were 13 nannies in all, scattered around the 3 or 4 buildings, each with her own group and her own room.

The other nanny in the same building as Cat Baker was Rhiannon Fretter.  When questioned she very vaguely said that she briefly saw Cat with a little girl that may have been Madeleine.

It is unlikely that a nanny with 7 children in her care would leave her room to go to another room without good reason.

In addition to all of this, Cat Baker is a Facebook friend of Jon Corners daughter and a few members of Kate McCanns cousin, Michael Wrights family.  Although this may well have been after May 3 07.

Cat also visited the McCanns at home in Rothley after their return from Portugal

As for Charlotte Pennington, she claimed to have seen Madeleine, but then again she claimed to have seen many other things that backed up the McCanns stories.  She seemed to be conveniently, always in the right place at the right time, far too often to warrant credibility.

Charlotte Pennington is currently working for a company called The Killing Game, they specialise in murder mystery weekends (no, I am not joking) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Cat Baker is in New York

I don't think that either are nannies at the moment

Hobs makes some very good points in asking, why would the McCann's need to cover up a genuine accident?

Again quoting Dr Christian Ludke....... 

Interviewer: Maybe it was an accident?

Dr Ludke: No, in such a case, after the first shock they would have trusted the police. Both parents are doctors , in case of an accident they would have tried to get help. It is even more unrealistic that of all people doctors would leave 3 children alone in a strange environment, even more so at night. I have many doctors as patients. As professionals they know all that can happen to children, and as parents the are normally overly protective.

Yet we hear witness statements from several of the McCann's friends back in the UK who say that Kate -especially- was slightly over protective with the children.

So why was Portugal different?

I remain stuck with Cadaverine and dogs' alerting.
But then having worked alongside drugs and explosives dogs for 30 years I would say that wouldn't I !   My years coincided with the Roman Catholic Terrorism of the PIRA, and my part of slum-clearance Nottingham had a heavy southern Irish contingent.  One of whom went to prison for an extremely long time for storing firearms on his allotment !  He claimed they had been planted    
And that forces me to go for a body lying in situ behind the sofa - ( the one which was then rammed back against the wall trapping the curtain, in a way in which you don't if you are going to draw the curtains like a normal person ) - for sufficient time for the cadaverine to develop to a point at which it could be detected some time later.
And that forces me to look seriously at overnight on 2nd / 3rd
And that forces me to look at the bust up between them on 2nd
And then at the absence of any meaningful witnesses to anything very much on 3rd
And to the clear forgery of the Last Photo    (Forgery in the legal sense of "telling a lie about itself')

And so on.\
And it involves very few people, which is always my preference. Tapas7 and Kate sent a long way away, for example
Those are my particular reasons for choosing 2/3, but I am willing to be persuaded of other possibilities if anyone purports them

PeterMac, do you think it was an accident?

For me there is too much of an undercurrent. The Gaspar's, the Lolita type photo's, the high level of protection. It doesn't add up.

The blood splatters/fluids on the wall behind the sofa were said to be indicative of a broken neck.

I would hardly think that this would have been a deliberate act. Anything, other than an accident would have been less messy and taken place away from the apartment.

Could this have been an accident following another incident?

Just a theory, but I read somewhere that Madeleine (like all children of her age) was reluctant to stop play and come inside to get ready for bed. Kate was saying that she would run and hide when it was it was to come in, playing hide n seek. Imagine that Kate was eager to get herself ready for the evening and Madeleine was behaving this way. She grabs Madeleine, Madeleine pulls away and her arm is bruised. Or, she is calmed down by sedatives, or slapped. Madeleine breaks away in temper and runs towards the sofa falling to the back of it.