The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
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.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

What do we KNOW?

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by Mo on 30.12.14 14:47

@sharonl wrote:
@Mo wrote:I am beginning to think the only people that really knew what happened to MM are the Payne's (not including the mother) and the Mc's themselves.  The Mc's only knew the Payne's really well so why would the others 'stick their necks out for aquaintances.  I think the only time they all really got together was for the timelines.

If something happened to MM before the 3rd May, surely they would have got the timelines straight on the 3rd May?  This could also account for the errors in their statements - which would mean that the others apart from the Payne's genuinely believe she was abducted.


Obviously I have a lot more reading to do to catch up with  this case and it maybe that you have already covered this point.
OMO

We should remember here that it is not just the Paynes or even the seven friends that supported the McCanns and their claims of abduction, but many others such as top celebrities, the media, the British Government and many UK expats to Portugal.  Even the McCanns co-ordinating lawyer took his annual family holidays  in Praia Da Luz for 13 years prior to Madeleines disappearance.

So why would so many people support the McCanns?

Looking a completely different case and not suggesting that this has anything to do with the McCann case.  We all know the story behind the Elm Lodge scandal.   Members of the Spartacus club used Elm Lodge and many other holiday homes regularly and for the purpose of meeting up with other members and for holding sex parties which included child abuse.  Many of the Spartacus Club members were celebrities, politicians and other VIPs.  Imagine if a child had gone missing from one of these holiday places.  Wouldn't the club members, the hotel owners and many others want to protect themselves?

There could be many reasons why so many people have supported this abduction claim.


I'm still catching up with this scenario on Textusa blog.  I was just looking at it first from a simplistic point of view at the moment.  I think that from the initial storm they got in touch with friends of friends etc - being Professionals (or so they think) gave clout to their plight.  As for the celebrities getting involved - all I can say is many celebs do things/say things/provide money for publicity especially when the Government is involved.  Have you noticed how they have all backed off now and did do a long time ago.

OMO   

Mo

Posts : 76
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-07-25
Age : 62
Location : Nottinghamshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by G-Unit on 30.12.14 15:12

@Mo wrote:I
@tiny wrote:
@Mo wrote:I am beginning to think the only people that really knew what happened to MM are the Payne's (not including the mother) and the Mc's themselves.  The Mc's only knew the Payne's really well so why would the others 'stick their necks out for aquaintances.  I think the only time they all really got together was for the timelines.

If something happened to MM before the 3rd May, surely they would have got the timelines straight on the 3rd May?  This could also account for the errors in their statements - which would mean that the others apart from the Payne's genuinely believe she was abducted.


Obviously I have a lot more reading to do to catch up with  this case and it maybe that you have already covered this point.
OMO
So why did did the ones who did not know go alone with the timelines,nah they all knew and if they didn't then they do now,but still wont say,they are all evil.
Purely because they could all get done for neglect.
There is no doubt that there was complete panic on 3rd May - crying, wailing, anger and despair by the Mccanns and hysteria by the Paynes. The Mccanns were sure that Madeleine had been 'taken' and 'abducted', perhaps because the apartment was locked? Only a complete idiot would leave the doors unlocked, none of the others did. Maybe they gave the key to someone for some reason? They were desperate for the police to close roads and airports. They rang friends and family - anyone who could 'get it out there' into the news. Now if Madeleine was dead, the delayed reaction of the police didn't really matter, did it? In fact it would help because they could say that the delay in closing the escape routes allowed the abductors to escape. If someone had taken the dead body, they wouldn't want them caught either, as it could become obvious that she was dead before she was taken. Therefore I think she was taken and some of them knew why, and even who. Hence the lack of searching. Hence leaving the twins alone to raise the alarm - I would have had one under each arm if I had run back to the Tapas Bar! I don't know why the Mccanns were in Praia da Luz, but Gerry clearly wasn't in holiday mood on the bus, so perhaps he was there for another reason. He played golf weekly at home, but became a tennis fanatic during that week it seems. Perhaps he needed to be in full view all week? There was no 'family time' except for a rather doubtful trip to the cold wet beach which no one enjoyed. After Madeleine had gone the twins were taken to the beach and the zoo etc. The mobile phones which were delivered to David Payne were of no use because they had no numbers in them, and if their phones had 'died' from lack of charging they couldn't get their contacts out of them. Therefore the new mobiles were perhaps delivered so that someone could contact them. This is borne out by the testimony of Carolyn Kish who overheard Gerry asking someone not to hurt Madeleine http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CAROLYN-KISH.htm   Kate said in one interview that 'it happened under other circumstances' (not because they left the children sleeping alone), which suggests that something was occurring that week. David Payne said "We were waiting for something to happen but didn't in our worst nightmare think it would be this." Does all this make sense? Apart from those pesky dogs, obviously.
avatar
G-Unit

Posts : 337
Reputation : 81
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by Tony Bennett on 30.12.14 15:33

@Mo wrote:
Is this a possible scenario...?

The group - maybe advised by some outside expert - agree to state that Dr Payne visited the McCanns' apartment at around 6.30pm and saw Kate and the three children alive. 

REPLY by Mo: Would all the group need to know that DP visited the Mc's apartment?  As they all didn't see DP at the apartment wouldn't that be hearsay on their part?  Throughout the week they obviously visited each others' apartments apart from the Mc's I think because they were only friends with the Paynes - not quite cosy and comfortable with the others
Er, Fiona Payne said she was actually there when her husband visited Kate.

Clearly she didn't rehearse her lines very well.

What can possibly account for all these errors concerning the last time Madeleine is supposed to have been seen alive by someone other than the McCanns?

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14733
Reputation : 2848
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by Tony Bennett on 30.12.14 15:44

@Mo wrote:
Perhaps DP did pop his head in to make sure K was OK with the plans for that night but never realised the PJ would ask about their conversation? This must have really thrown them -

Just thoughts Tony - OMO
@ Mo,

I realise you are new here, BUT...

we prefer evidence to unevidenced speculation.

If he 'popped his head in' as your imagination suggests to you, THEN

Dr David Payne lied and lied and lied again and again by claiming he had an extended stay in the apartment and saw all the children looking angelic, etc. etc., dressed in white etc.

AND
 
Dr Kate McCann was not telling the truth about rushing to the door clad only in a towel and not letting Payne in.

And this is about a child who is missing.

Either this visit took place, or it didn't.

If there were slight discrepancies in their two accounts, I might agree with you.

But here we have TWENTY outright contradictions

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14733
Reputation : 2848
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by Mo on 30.12.14 17:02

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Mo wrote:
Is this a possible scenario...?

The group - maybe advised by some outside expert - agree to state that Dr Payne visited the McCanns' apartment at around 6.30pm and saw Kate and the three children alive. 

REPLY by Mo: Would all the group need to know that DP visited the Mc's apartment?  As they all didn't see DP at the apartment wouldn't that be hearsay on their part?  Throughout the week they obviously visited each others' apartments apart from the Mc's I think because they were only friends with the Paynes - not quite cosy and comfortable with the others
Er, Fiona Payne said she was actually there when her husband visited Kate.

Clearly she didn't rehearse her lines very well.

What can possibly account for all these errors concerning the last time Madeleine is supposed to have been seen alive by someone other than the McCanns?
Not according to her Rogatory statement?

Sorry if this is a bit messy but I'm working on my iPad

00.27.211485“Yeah”.
 Reply“So, you know, it wasn’t a surprise that they weren’t there. Erm, and I know Dave had said to me later, because he, erm, after tennis he’d said he’d checked on Kate and the kids before going to tennis”.
 1485“Who was that, sorry, Dave?”
 Reply“Dave, yeah.  So he’d mentioned that later, so I don’t know at what point I knew that, but”.
 1485“Was that off his own back or was he told?”
 Reply“No, he said, what did he check off his own back?”
 1485“Yeah”.
 Reply“I don’t know actually, I don’t know”.
 1485“How did that come into your conversation?”
 Reply“Because he was saying how angelic they all looked and he said to Kate when we all sat down at the Tapas table as well and he was sort of joking how they looked like perfect children, because they were all sat there, all clean in their pyjamas, having a story”.
 1485“Yeah.  But when did he, specifically, when did he tell you?”
 Reply“That he’d done that?”
 1485“Done that, yeah”.
 Reply“I think it was when we were getting the kids ready for bed and we were back in our apartment”.
 1485“Right.  So what time did he come back then from his tennis?”
 Reply“I’d say, if we came back about seven, he was about ten minutes after that, so about ten past seven, quarter past seven, something like that”.

Mo

Posts : 76
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-07-25
Age : 62
Location : Nottinghamshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by Mo on 30.12.14 17:17

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Mo wrote:
Perhaps DP did pop his head in to make sure K was OK with the plans for that night but never realised the PJ would ask about their conversation? This must have really thrown them -

Just thoughts Tony - OMO
@ Mo,

I realise you are new here, BUT...

we prefer evidence to unevidenced speculation.

If he 'popped his head in' as your imagination suggests to you, THEN

Dr David Payne lied and lied and lied again and again by claiming he had an extended stay in the apartment and saw all the children looking angelic, etc. etc., dressed in white etc.

AND
 
Dr Kate McCann was not telling the truth about rushing to the door clad only in a towel and not letting Payne in.

And this is about a child who is missing.

Either this visit took place, or it didn't.

If there were slight discrepancies in their two accounts, I might agree with you.

But here we have TWENTY outright contradictions

There seems to be a lot of speculation on the forum due to the lack of evidence especially the day in which MM went missing.  There is also much speculation whether this case will be a Whitewash.  Therefore I am speculating as others are but if you wish I will stop and just read other peoples posts!

Mo

Posts : 76
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2014-07-25
Age : 62
Location : Nottinghamshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by cbeagle on 31.12.14 3:28

High levels of British society have covered up crimes related to children.

cbeagle

Posts : 85
Reputation : 31
Join date : 2014-08-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by Tony Bennett on 01.01.15 12:15

@Mo wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Mo wrote:
Is this a possible scenario...?

The group - maybe advised by some outside expert - agree to state that Dr Payne visited the McCanns' apartment at around 6.30pm and saw Kate and the three children alive. 

REPLY by Mo: Would all the group need to know that DP visited the Mc's apartment?  As they all didn't see DP at the apartment wouldn't that be hearsay on their part?  Throughout the week they obviously visited each others' apartments apart from the Mc's I think because they were only friends with the Paynes - not quite cosy and comfortable with the others
Er, Fiona Payne said she was actually there when her husband visited Kate.

Clearly she didn't rehearse her lines very well.

What can possibly account for all these errors concerning the last time Madeleine is supposed to have been seen alive by someone other than the McCanns?
Not according to her Rogatory statement?
What is the value of this Rogatory statement, taken a year after the events in question, and after they had all had much opportunity to reconsider - and revise - the various contradictory statements they all made at the timee?

For a fuller understanding of some of the issues relating to Fiona Payne's evidence, about having visted G5A herself, have a look back at this discussion:

++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE

Processos volume xiii, pages 3909-3915
(correspondence from DC Mike Marshall to Ricardo Pavia on 24 Oct 2007 regarding the Gasper statements)

"I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her statements, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to"


I'm not sure if I have missed any discussion on this before, but while creating the tennis tables (see above link) I came across, not only a major discrepancy (DP claims he was playing tennis until 8.00 FP says he was back in the apartment at 7.10pm) but also Fiona Payne (after first giving specific details in her statement about the whereabouts of David Payne) admitted later, when questioned, that she cannot say that David Payne was on the tennis court between 6.00pm and 7.00pm!

Seemed of great interest to the police interviewer!

Am I reading it correctly?


According to Gerry McCanns statement David Payne was with the other group members at the beach until 6.30pm when Gerry saw DP at the tennis court and asked him to check on Kate. DP returned at 7pm when Gerry left the tennis court to return to the apartment, leaving David Payne playing tennis.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap10

After 17h30 they went to the apartment, the deponent having entered by the main door, which he did not lock while he was inside the residence. Kate and the children entered by the rear door [patio window], after this had been opened from the inside by the deponent.

They bathed the children, the deponent having left at 18h00 for a tennis game only for men, at which were: Dan, tennis instructor; Julian, with whom he had played tennis several times; and Curtis, with whom he had also played.

During the afternoon of that day the rest of the group members, including the children, were at the beach, [they] having returned [to the tennis courts] at 18h30, the time at which he saw David Payne next to the tennis court. David went to visit Kate and the children and returned close to 19h00, trying to convince the deponent to continue to play tennis; to which pleading he did not accede, as he had already been playing for about an hour and had to go back to to his wife. Nevertheless, Russell, David and Matthew stayed to play


But Matthew Oldfield says this about the 3rd May

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id261.html#tap11

Later, sometime between 13h30 and 14h00, he and his family went to their apartment to put their daughter down for a sleep, remaining there until about 14h15/14h30 – the time at which he decided to go to find Russell, he also having returned to his own flat, to call him for them both to go sailing.

After their sport (sometime between 15h30 and 15h45) they both went to the beach where they met up with the rest of the group, including children, staying there until about 17h00. He clarifies that Gerry, Kate and their children were not at the beach.

Leaving the beach they went to the beach restaurant where they fed the children while the adults limited themselves to a few drinks.

About 18h00 he, Russell and David went to a social men's tennis match, held in the above resort area, where they remained until about 19h00. He clarifies that when they arrived at that meeting Gerald was already there, with Kate and her children watching the match; the rest of the women and children joining them [Kate and children] later.

At 19h00 he, Russell and David had finished the match, having then gone to their respective apartments in which they found other members of the group.


If we bring in the evidence of Fiona Payne, Dr Payne’s wife, even more contradictions come to light. She maintains that she went to the McCanns’ apartment at 7.00pm, and that her husband, Dr Payne, joined her there ten minutes later.  There’s no mention of this elsewhere. And besides that, Dr Payne is adamant in his statements that he was playing tennis after 7.00pm and until 8.00pm.

Another Tapas 7 member, Dr Matthew Oldfield, likewise says that he, Russell O’Brien and David Payne were all playing tennis from 6pm and 7pm, completely undermining Dr Payne’s statement about his alleged visit to Kate. Even more bewildering, he says that at that time Gerry, Kaye and all three children were at the tennis court, Kate and the children watching Gerry. This contradicts the McCanns’ claim that all of them walked back to their flat 20 minutes earlier.    

UNQUOTE

+++++++++++++++++++++


ETA:  P.S. @ Mo

On a related thread where I informed thread readers about the 20 discrepancies between Dr David Payne and Dr Kate McCan about his alleged visit to the McCanns' apartment at 6.30pm on 3 May 2007, you wrote:

QUOTE

There seems to be a lot of speculation on the forum due to the lack of evidence especially the day in which MM went missing. There is also much speculation whether this case will be a Whitewash. Therefore I am speculating as others are but if you wish I will stop and just read other peoples posts!

UNQUOTE

Reply:  Although you have only recently joined the forum, you obviously already have great knowledge of the case, and are able to, it seems, dip in and out of the rogatory statements at ease, on this occasion - as it happens - mistakenly using a rogatory interview to try and prove that Fiona Payne didn't say she visited G5A that evening. 

As you see above, you were incorrect.

I think what you'll find on the forum, in fact, is a lot of information and a lot of research, and a lot of analasis.

If you want to speculate, by all means do so, but try and make sure it is informed speculation.      

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14733
Reputation : 2848
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by ChippyM on 01.01.15 13:22

@tiny wrote:I still don't believe the children were ever neglected,but if they were then ALL the children in that group should be under the eye of S/S because they must have been drugged

   All of the Tapas lot seem to be lying and very unsure of their memories in statements. There has to be something that makes it worthwhile for them all to lie for so long.  For me drugging the children purposefully....or having the children left in one apartment where one or more of them accessed drugs by mistake could be a credible explanation.

 Was the illness and vomiting said to have been afflicting some of the kids in the group connected to drugs?  If all of the children had been drugged , or accidentally consumed drugs and something went wrong, maybe some of the middle aged kids were being sick and confined to bed, the twins may have been affected and still out cold on the night MM supposedly went missing ( Kate was checking their breathing as described by Fiona Payne).....maybe MM being one of the eldest, was not incapacitated completely but dizzy and got into trouble....or an underlying condition meant she did not recover. I seem to recall that one of the Oldfield or O'Brien kids may not have been in the creche later in the week, they were possibly ill too and the group would be keen to cover this up if it was from some kind of 'accident'. Maybe they would not be asking for clean sheets to be brought to the apartment if they wanted to keep prying eyes away from the state of their kids.

  The McCanns had medication apparently for Kate's dad in their apartment which seemed to have been prescribed by a doctor called McCann...why would it be there and why would Fiona Payne say her friend was checking the twins breathing if she was in on the deception?  I think this could be a cover incase any of the children were tested or any hairs were found that would indicate drugs. If it was found in one or more child they could pin responsibility on the mythical abductor.

 The tales of a bug that left the children vomiting and with diarrhoea  (also some adults, allegedly due to an inflight sandwhich) could have been a cover for some drug mis-hap that happened earlier in the week.. I wonder if they were all sedating their kids knowingly or negligently left drugs (prescription or illegal)  around for their kids to access, and then went along with trying to keep MM's death secret because their decision to leave ALL the kids alone in a situation were they overdosed would be enough to agree to a cover up. If the Tapas party had illegal drugs during the holiday and one or more child took them, that would ruin all their careers and lives IMO.

   Just a theory and one that leaves out the Gaspar statement at that!

ChippyM

Posts : 1284
Reputation : 423
Join date : 2013-06-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by G-Unit on 01.01.15 14:11

@ChippyM wrote:
@tiny wrote:I still don't believe the children were ever neglected,but if they were then ALL the children in that group should be under the eye of S/S because they must have been drugged

   All of the Tapas lot seem to be lying and very unsure of their memories in statements. There has to be something that makes it worthwhile for them all to lie for so long.  For me drugging the children purposefully....or having the children left in one apartment where one or more of them accessed drugs by mistake could be a credible explanation.

 Was the illness and vomiting said to have been afflicting some of the kids in the group connected to drugs?  If all of the children had been drugged , or accidentally consumed drugs and something went wrong, maybe some of the middle aged kids were being sick and confined to bed, the twins may have been affected and still out cold on the night MM supposedly went missing ( Kate was checking their breathing as described by Fiona Payne).....maybe MM being one of the eldest, was not incapacitated completely but dizzy and got into trouble....or an underlying condition meant she did not recover. I seem to recall that one of the Oldfield or O'Brien kids may not have been in the creche later in the week, they were possibly ill too and the group would be keen to cover this up if it was from some kind of 'accident'. Maybe they would not be asking for clean sheets to be brought to the apartment if they wanted to keep prying eyes away from the state of their kids.

  The McCanns had medication apparently for Kate's dad in their apartment which seemed to have been prescribed by a doctor called McCann...why would it be there and why would Fiona Payne say her friend was checking the twins breathing if she was in on the deception?  I think this could be a cover incase any of the children were tested or any hairs were found that would indicate drugs. If it was found in one or more child they could pin responsibility on the mythical abductor.

 The tales of a bug that left the children vomiting and with diarrhoea  (also some adults, allegedly due to an inflight sandwhich) could have been a cover for some drug mis-hap that happened earlier in the week.. I wonder if they were all sedating their kids knowingly or negligently left drugs (prescription or illegal)  around for their kids to access, and then went along with trying to keep MM's death secret because their decision to leave ALL the kids alone in a situation were they overdosed would be enough to agree to a cover up. If the Tapas party had illegal drugs during the holiday and one or more child took them, that would ruin all their careers and lives IMO.

   Just a theory and one that leaves out the Gaspar statement at that!
Gerry Mccann detailed the medicine he and Kate took to Portugal 

"When they travelled on holiday to Portugal they brought several medicines, namely, Nurofen, for fevers and pains, both for adults and children, Losec for gastric problems that he occasionally suffers from, and an anti-histamine called Terfenadine, for hay fever. He did not give any of these medicines or any others to the children while on holiday in Portugal"  http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic60.html


The terfenadine was a bit dodgy apparently, as it could affect the heart. consequently it was only available on prescription at the time, I believe. The drugs you mentioned were, I think, taken from the villa which they rented later and Kate Mccann said they were for her father's Parkinson's disease. A bit strange if Gerry was prescribing for him though. 
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/318407/Kate-McCann-s-attack-on-lies-over-drugs-found-in-Maddie-flat
avatar
G-Unit

Posts : 337
Reputation : 81
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by Khaleesi on 01.01.15 14:26

@ChippyM wrote:
   All of the Tapas lot seem to be lying and very unsure of their memories in statements. There has to be something that makes it worthwhile for them all to lie for so long.  For me drugging the children purposefully....or having the children left in one apartment where one or more of them accessed drugs by mistake could be a credible explanation.

The kids getting into the parents stash is a very tempting hypothesis, but it does not explain the blood traces in 5A, even if we assume that intoxicated Maddie had some fatal accident. It's hard for me to imagine an accident which would leave so many traces of blood, so high on the walls and the back of the sofa.

The scenario that would both involve the drugs and explain the blood traces, would be that one of the parents (Kate? Those bruises on her forearms, looking like she was forcibly restrained) walked in on Maddie, who just found their stash and maybe opened it, maybe was playing with it... Anyway the adult got enraged by the waste of a good stuff and flew off handle. Maddie was trying to hide behind the sofa and was beaten there to death with a blunt object (A tennis racquet? It's quit peculiar that so many members of the Tapas Group were unable to recolect during the rogs if Gerald had his tennis racquet with him in Praia), what would explain the blood traces on the walls and the sofa (A head injury? Thse do bleed profusely). If Maddie didn't die during the beating or immediately after that, but hours later, due to the internal bleeding (liver, or spleen rupture, caused by the beating) , that would fit to Kate's statements about her being very pale and tired.

Yes. A horrible scenario, I know.

Now, if the rest of the Tapas Group was involved in the illegal drugs usage it would explain why they were so eager to cover up for the McCanns without asking too many questions. At the end their own butts were on fire, because if it came out they were using drugs, their careers in a medical field would be over, their reputations destroyed, there would be no money, no nice lifestyles and big houses, total apocalypse.

avatar
Khaleesi

Posts : 75
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2014-11-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by aquila on 01.01.15 14:51

Have I missed something here or is this thread way off topic with theories?

Please look at the title of the thread.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8704
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by ChippyM on 01.01.15 17:12

@Khaleesi wrote:
@ChippyM wrote:
   All of the Tapas lot seem to be lying and very unsure of their memories in statements. There has to be something that makes it worthwhile for them all to lie for so long.  For me drugging the children purposefully....or having the children left in one apartment where one or more of them accessed drugs by mistake could be a credible explanation.

The kids getting into the parents stash is a very tempting hypothesis, but it does not explain the blood traces in 5A, even if we assume that intoxicated Maddie had some fatal accident. It's hard for me to imagine an accident which would leave so many traces of blood, so high on the walls and the back of the sofa.
................

Now, if the rest of the Tapas Group was involved in the illegal drugs usage it would explain why they were so eager to cover up for the McCanns without asking too many questions. At the end their own butts were on fire, because if it came out they were using drugs, their careers in a medical field would be over, their reputations destroyed, there would be no money, no nice lifestyles and big houses, total apocalypse.


I'm not sure you could say the blood found was 'too high' if you don't know the nature of the accident. Blood on the window sill, curtain and floor does seem to point to a child climbing up to the window and possibly falling....but this doesn't exactly exclude the scenario you are suggesting either. If a child was frightened or disorientated and being pursued by an angry parent, who knows.

Aquila yes I have seen the thread title, it may be annoying and I will try not to do it so much but every topic here does seem to end up with theorising as members are always certainly thinking about various theories whilst such little solid info. comes out.

ChippyM

Posts : 1284
Reputation : 423
Join date : 2013-06-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by Khaleesi on 01.01.15 17:43

@ChippyM wrote:
I'm not sure you could say the blood found was 'too high' if you don't know the nature of the accident. Blood on the window sill, curtain and floor does seem to point to a child climbing up to the window and possibly falling....but this doesn't exactly exclude the scenario you are suggesting either. If a child was frightened or disorientated and being pursued by an angry parent, who knows.

A fatal fall from the window would not leave the blood traces on the windowsill, the upper portions of curtains and walls, or the sofa, even if a victim would manage to rupture an artery in the process (what is very unlikely anyway). The injuries that might be caused by such fall are likely bloodless - broken neck, cracked skull (in this case the blood would be seeping into the skull cavity). Even with a scalp or brow ridge laceration immobilised (or barely moving) victim would be bleeding steadily in one place, without leaving those telltale spots all over the corner.

Look how high on the wall these markers are. And we are talking here a three foot tall, mortally injured child.

Now, beating with a blunt object is completely different. Even from the lacerated scalp or brow ridge the blood transfers onto the weapon and then, with each swing, lands everywhere around. And, with each hit into the blood source the blood splatters around. In the boxing fights you can see how the hits can spread a blood from a small laceration over a huge area. That actually is quite consistent with the pattern of the spots on the narrow part of the wall, the one at 90 degree angle to the window. They do not cover an entire surface of the wall, but create an oval shape, as if there was something between the blood source and the wall, blocking the blood spatters.
avatar
Khaleesi

Posts : 75
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2014-11-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re; What do we know

Post by G-Unit on 01.01.15 18:10

I am new to posting and am not sure if I am doing it right either. I try to have references for what I say, hope that's OK  big grin  
My contribution to this is about Kate Mccann's parenting. Most of her friends and relatives have said what a good mother she was, but little details suggest that she struggled. Janet Kennedy refers to Madeleine crying a lot, demanding a lot of attention and not sleeping well. She 'poked' and 'pinched' the twins and hit Sean over the head. When Janet explained that wasn't nice, she did it again lol. Kate needed and was grateful for the family's help before, after and during their time in Amsterdam. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANNET-KENNEDY.htm
Patricia Cameron says 'many' family members went to Amsterdam to help as Kate was unwell. Once she arrived in Praia Da Luz she didn't take the twins to the creche in the afternoons as she thought it was a bad idea for them to be there all day. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PATRICIA_CAMERON.htm
Friends seem to have looked after Madeleine also; Amanda Coxon (cleaner) and KarMalman (met at nursery). The twins went back to the creche on Friday 4th May (Dianne Webster signed them in that day) and every other day until Patricia got that sorted. Kate also complains in her book (p111) that they had to pick the twins up from the creche themselves on Monday 7th because their support system had let them down!  Her supporters were out searching the surrounding area for her missing daughter at the time, but they had to rush back and look after the twins while she spoke to the BBC. I find it hard to understand how they all praised her parenting, but didn't notice that she seemed to prefer doing anything but? 
Now, to speculate; It would not surprise me if Kate lost her temper because she had been a) ignored by the others who all went to the beach without telling/inviting her and b) left with the childcare because Gerry was once more playing tennis. As to whether this would lead to a frenzied attack?  I couldn't speculate.
avatar
G-Unit

Posts : 337
Reputation : 81
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re; what do we know

Post by G-Unit on 01.01.15 22:12

By the way, I think only the 'cadaver'; dog marked Kate's clothes, not the 'blood' dog. If she had no blood on her clothes then no wild attack?
This is something I haven't seen before;
 "In the context of the investigation, we have collected information concerning a vehicle used by RUSSELL O'BRIEN, friend and member of the group who spent their holiday with the McCann family in the Algarve . At the time of the request for vehicles considered important to the procedures that follow, we were not aware of the identification details of this vehicle. Meantime, our investigation has led us to establish that it may be a vehicle of the "Opel" range, a "Corsa" model, registration....AG - 62. At the present time, we do not have a mandate to search for and seize the vehicle to allow us to add the vehicle to the planned inspections. As a consequence, we request such a legal mandate in order to be able to realize the planned inspections"      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm
This car later turned out to have been hired by James Gorrod, an aquaintance of Russell O'Brien's from Exeter. First time I've heard of it being used by Russell O'Brien though. Strangely enough, Jeremy Wilkins saw a 'woman in purple' near the McCann's apartment when he set out with his son on 3rd May. Jane Tanner has been pictured wearing purple quite a lot, and she sent a text message to the Goddards at 8.30pm on 3rd May. she said it was connected with Mr Gorrod's birthday BBQ, to which they had been invited on the Friday lunchtime and she was asking if they needed to bring anything. She texted again on 4th at 9am, presumably to say they couldn't make it.    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_MOBILE.htm   http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
 A sighting of Madeleine was reported in Bulgaria on 25th May 2007 accompanied by O'Brien and Tanner, but difficult to read.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_MOBILE.htm
avatar
G-Unit

Posts : 337
Reputation : 81
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by Khaleesi on 01.01.15 22:27

@G-Unit wrote:By the way, I think only the 'cadaver'; dog marked Kate's clothes, not the 'blood' dog. If she had no blood on her clothes then no wild attack?

Or the bloody clothes and the cadaver perfumed clothes were two different sets, the first one thrown out immediately due to visible staining, the second one left in Kate's possesion as nobody from the McGroup thought the scent might linger in it that long.
avatar
Khaleesi

Posts : 75
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2014-11-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by Guest on 01.01.15 22:50

Which would indicate the accident and contact with (removal of?) the body took place at different times. Based on that theory.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by G-Unit on 02.01.15 8:04

Dee Coy wrote:Which would indicate the accident and contact with (removal of?) the body took place at different times. Based on that theory.
Or, one person whose clothes were not investigated did the deed and another handled the corpse. Or even Kate Mccann had been 'corpse wrestling' at work (along with Madeleine in her T Shirt holding Cuddle Cat of course). Maybe the dogs did alert to blood on the clothes, but I didn't read it that way.
avatar
G-Unit

Posts : 337
Reputation : 81
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by G-Unit on 02.01.15 9:24

Russell O'Brien mentions more than once that he checked Matt Oldfield's children on Sunday 30th April using their apartment key to get in, although he does mention that Matt was ill and not at the Tapas on Sunday evening for the meal ????  http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm
avatar
G-Unit

Posts : 337
Reputation : 81
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by Khaleesi on 02.01.15 15:39

@G-Unit wrote:Russell O'Brien mentions more than once that he checked Matt Oldfield's children on Sunday 30th April using their apartment key to get in, although he does mention that Matt was ill and not at the Tapas on Sunday evening for the meal ????  http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RUSSELL-OBRIEN_ROGATORY.htm

These ilnesses of the Tapas group members are a bit fishy to me.
avatar
Khaleesi

Posts : 75
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2014-11-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by ChippyM on 02.01.15 16:37

@Khaleesi wrote:
@ChippyM wrote:
I'm not sure you could say the blood found was 'too high' if you don't know the nature of the accident. Blood on the window sill, curtain and floor does seem to point to a child climbing up to the window and possibly falling....but this doesn't exactly exclude the scenario you are suggesting either. If a child was frightened or disorientated and being pursued by an angry parent, who knows.

A fatal fall from the window would not leave the blood traces on the windowsill, the upper portions of curtains and walls, or the sofa, even if a victim would manage to rupture an artery in the process (what is very unlikely anyway). The injuries that might be caused by such fall are likely bloodless - broken neck, cracked skull (in this case the blood would be seeping into the skull cavity). Even with a scalp or brow ridge laceration immobilised (or barely moving) victim would be bleeding steadily in one place, without leaving those telltale spots all over the corner.

Look how high on the wall these markers are. And we are talking here a three foot tall, mortally injured child.

Now, beating with a blunt object is completely different. Even from the lacerated scalp or brow ridge the blood transfers onto the weapon and then, with each swing, lands everywhere around. And, with each hit into the blood source the blood splatters around. In the boxing fights you can see how the hits can spread a blood from a small laceration over a huge area. That actually is quite consistent with the pattern of the spots on the narrow part of the wall, the one at 90 degree angle to the window. They do not cover an entire surface of the wall, but create an oval shape, as if there was something between the blood source and the wall, blocking the blood spatters.


I suppose I shall wander back to being a little more on topic now,   .... I went back to the files and the forensics reports on the DNA in 5A, unless my interpretation is wrong most of these markers indicate DNA evidence that wasn't proven to come from MM alone but some were partial matches from multiple members of the McCann family.  It was the dogs that indicated death/ blood in certain areas  although forensics was unable to prove it was MM's DNA conclusively,  let alone blood.  I think Amaral had a theory about arterial spray after a broken neck, which may explain if it was blood.

    So as far as I can tell those markers are not necessarily blood. So what we do know (as inkeeping with the thread title)  is DNA was found in these areas and unfortunately it was not complete enough to yield any meaningful results in proving a death.  We could speculate that any blood was cleaned and that's why the results weren't conclusive but that would be theorising again, which I am trying not to do  yes

ChippyM

Posts : 1284
Reputation : 423
Join date : 2013-06-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by PeterMac on 02.01.15 16:47

@Khaleesi wrote:
These ilnesses of the Tapas group members are a bit fishy to me.
Not to mention the alleged illnesses of the children, whom they seem to have cheerfully abandoned, going back from time to time to muck them out, scrape them clean, change the sheets and then return to the Tapas bar . .

Really ?
NONot anyone, ever, anywhere.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 174
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: What do we KNOW?

Post by Khaleesi on 02.01.15 17:20

@PeterMac wrote:
@Khaleesi wrote:
These ilnesses of the Tapas group members are a bit fishy to me.
Not to mention the alleged illnesses of the children, whom they seem to have cheerfully abandoned, going back from time to time to muck them out, scrape them clean, change the sheets and then return to the Tapas bar . .

Really  ?
NONot anyone, ever, anywhere.

Totally agree. Diarrhoea and vomiting are dangerous for children that young. It does not take much to dehydrate a baby (and I won't even mention a danger of choking on the vomit). Yet we have here a bunch of doctors who tell us they were absolutely ok with leaving their ill children alone. Like it was no big deal, just pop on the kid a fresh nappy from time to time.
avatar
Khaleesi

Posts : 75
Reputation : 6
Join date : 2014-11-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

What we know

Post by G-Unit on 02.01.15 20:54

In his first statement on 4th May 2007 Gerry McCann said he and Kate checked the children at 9pm and 10pm respectively using the apartment key. He also says that Matthew Oldfield checked at 9.30pm using the unlocked patio door. This makes no sense, and in his next statement he changes it and says they all used the unlocked patio door. 

He must be lying in one of these statements. For the first statement to make sense he should have said that a) all three of them used the unlocked patio door or  b) They all used the key to enter the locked apartment. Why did he settle for the first option  (a)  in his second statement on 10th May?
avatar
G-Unit

Posts : 337
Reputation : 81
Join date : 2014-12-29
Location : UK

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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