Bring Out Your Dead: Dr Martin Roberts

Bring Out Your Dead: Dr Martin Roberts

Introduction

Many years ago, more years ago than what is acceptable in solving the solvable case surrounding the unlawful killing of Madeleine McCann, I opined.

I opined that out of the many theories proffered by many sharp thinkers, and some not so sharp, on the many forums that abounded at the time, that there was a very good chance, that unwittingly and unknowingly, someone had already offered a theory that essentially would answer, pretty well, the Madeleine conundrum. The conundrum of who, what, but doubtfully the why, the why of this case remaining a conundrum in its own right until such a time as the fat lady sings.

 That was then, but this is now. Now sees me doubting such former opinions. So much so in fact, that they are dismissed. To be replaced by what, you might ask? By something I like, the answer.

By something I like so much, it actually gives me the shivers. And the cause of said shivers; the latest offering of Dr Martin Roberts.

Before reading Dr Roberts' narrative, might I ask you to watch this short video clip, it being critical to the whole post? It is a well known clip, it depicts Kate McCann in what I once described as: what has to be the most unconvincing appeal by any mother of a missing child in the annals of history. Link

Wooden yes, but wooden for a reason, and it is here the plot thickens. But far be it for me to write a spoiler, much better you read Dr Roberts' essay.

But I will ask you to pay attention, not only to Kate McCann's message, that being the reason we are here, but to the actions of Gerry McCann.

Watch Gerry McCann throughout, including the sneaky look that passes from him to her, (1min 07secs) but I suggest you watch his hand in the first few seconds, then whizz it back and watch his face over the same period, You can’t watch hand and face simultaneously, it’s too quick.



Exclusive

By Dr Martin Roberts
24 May 2015

During those dark, dreadful Middle-Ages, and afterwards, the wistful trundling of a cart, accompanied by melancholic appeals from its driver, signalled to the surviving residents of a rapidly dwindling metropolis that someone was at hand to relieve them of whatever corpse might now be menacing the health of their entire household. Nowadays we are more accustomed to bells announcing the arrival of ice cream, although the need for waste disposal in the 21st century has certainly not abated, as was made manifest in Portugal eight years ago.

Blogger, Tania Cadogan has once again drawn attention to the question of putrefaction, and the behaviour of dogs when presented with a pungent odour of any kind. Link

As any dog owner/handler will confirm, whether or not a canine is specifically trained to associate one or other smell with a particular innate behaviour, be it a wagging tail, a bark, or ‘pointing’ with its nose, it will smell (and inevitably notice) any odour of potential interest to it. (Anyone will hear a busker in the street, even if only a few recognise the tune). The dog’s decision either to ignore or investigate then becomes a function of the odour’s significance (to the dog) and/or its prior training in avoidance, as is the case with animals tasked with ‘tracking’ or ‘search and rescue’, among other specialisms, where common-or-garden aromas, including food waste, are ‘screened out’ at the training stage.

What Tania brings to the fore are the Police reports of early searches conducted in Praia da Luz, using dogs (variously described as ‘tracker’ or ‘search and rescue’ animals), in the aftermath of the McCanns’ announcement of their daughter Madeleine’s abduction; specifically the dogs’ deployment at the Ocean Club complex, where apartment 5J was noted to have been peculiarly provocative as far as these dogs were concerned, each of them separately introduced to its front door: two on the night of 7 May (c 23.00), four (two of either ‘discipline’) late in the evening of the 10th (c. 20.10).

The observations of GNR officers present at the first of these searches led directly to the second, during the course of which the conspicuous interest of the dogs in said apartment was confirmed. Whereas on the first occasion the apartment was merely ‘checked’ for any indication (by the dogs) of a missing (presumed alive) child, it was duly noted on the second visit, that whatever odour was attracting the animals it appeared to emanate from the vicinity of the fridge, the door of which was open. Inside was some rotting meat and vegetables. (Sound familiar?)

The invitation to move toward a conclusion here is nigh-on irresistible, and one that Tania herself understandably accepted. We may take a further step forward however.

It is apparent from the reports filed in respect of these two ‘sweeps’ of the Ocean Club, that the second was a more determined attempt to locate Madeleine McCann utilising the dogs, the first being somewhat speculative, since the animals were engaged outside of their normal operational parameters. As regards the first ‘check’, it is unclear whether the dogs or their GNR handlers proceeded beyond the front door even. No specific mention is made in the report, from that inspection, of the fridge, its door or its contents. What was recorded was the similarity of the first dogs’ reactions when passing the front doors of apartments 5A and 5J, the two animals having earlier been ‘primed’, as it were, by first sniffing Madeleine’s clothes.

What this suggests is that these two dogs at least, and quite possibly all of them eventually, reacted to the same odour, which was not that of rotting meat, but something else, since we know for certain that no rotting meat or vegetables were left on the premises at apartment 5A, where Rex and Zarus had each become somewhat agitated, afterwards exhibiting the same agitation once outside apartment 5J.

Whilst the exact status of the 5J fridge on the night of 7 May is unconfirmed, had it been closed at that time the first two dogs (Rex and Zarus) could not have smelt its contents, but will have been drawn to something else; so too the hounds that came after them.

Although an alternative continuity might be proposed, given the dogs were first introduced to certain of Madeleine McCann’s clothes, the supposition that they later, on this basis, indicated the transient presence in both apartments (5A and 5J) of Madeleine McCann , does not stand up to scrutiny. What would she have been doing in 5J in the first place, having been ‘abducted’ from downstairs, and why was she not still there on the 10th? Unless the ‘abductor’ had a professional connection to the Ocean Club, they could not have gained entry to one of its unoccupied (locked) apartments, much less incarcerate a small child in complete and utter silence for any length of time. Overnight perhaps. But the dogs, as we have seen, were drawn toward the fridge, not the bedroom.

An even more naïve interpretation might be that the dogs simply over-reacted to each of two different odours - Madeleine’s (emanating from 5A, naturally) and the meat left abandoned in 5J. However, since the dogs would have been trained to avoid ambient stimuli of no relevance to their ‘target’ scent, such an explanation goes only half-way. Furthermore, among the dogs introduced into apartment 5J were ‘search and rescue’ animals, trained, obviously, in the detection of human scent(s). There is no suggestion that the meat housed in the fridge was human flesh.

It is not unreasonable to infer therefore that these dogs (usually deployed for either ‘tracking’ or ‘search and rescue’ purposes), although not trained to react to the smell of a dead body necessarily, did exactly that at both apartments. As the PJ officers noted with respect to 5J (and as the files record), there must have been “some unusual odour, but which with all certainty did not have anything to do with the odour being searched for, but there must have been something strange inside”.

What may be distilled from all of this is the strong possibility that a corpse had been temporarily accommodated in apartment 5J of the Ocean Club. 5A and 5J shared something in common and it was not the smell of rotting meat. Nor was it the trace of a live child. And since we have available to us the results from a very specific canine examination of 5A subsequently, it is again not unreasonable to infer that the common odour (with 5J) was that of a dead body, not a live one.

Waste removal

And so to the communication between disposal operative and the recently bereaved. In this case it is not a matter of the former extending an invitation to the latter, but the converse.

At 2.00 p.m. on the afternoon of 7 May (the day the first of these dog-assisted searches was to take place), Kate McCann delivered a televised appeal to her daughter’s supposed abductor, with (so we are told by Kate in her book, ‘madeleine’) encouragement from British Embassy press officer Andy Bowes, together with Alex Woolfall, a PR crisis-management specialist from Bell Pottinger (UK). Said appeal was altogether extraordinary, not in terms of its delivery per se, but the manner in which it was worded, as noted fully six years ago (see: Who Were You With Last Night?, McCannfiles 31.7.2009). The written statement was as follows:

"We would like to say a few words to the person who is with our Madeleine, or has been with Madeleine.

“Madeleine is a beautiful, bright, funny and caring little girl. She is so special.

“Please, please do not hurt her. Please don't scare her. Please let us know where to find Madeleine, or put her in a place of safety and tell somebody where.

“We beg you to let Madeleine come home. We need our Madeleine. Sean and Amelie need Madeleine and she needs us.

“Please give our little girl back.

“Por favor, devolva a nossa menina. [Please give our little girl back]"

Read for the cameras by Kate McCann, It was intended to represent the heartfelt plea of a mother whose child had recently been abducted. But set these same words in the context of a parent who already knows their daughter to be dead and they take on an altogether different complexion. Who would ask for the return of dead body in any case?

Instead, Kate McCann is literally telling the person who has been looking after Madeleine to move her (‘put her in a place of safety’) – and on the very day the Police would later bring dogs to bear in searching the Ocean Club apartments!

If this should sound far-fetched, then consider her next instruction: ‘tell somebody where’.

Not, you will notice, ‘tell US where’, given that most desperate parents in anything like this sort of situation would wish to be the first to know. Kate McCann appears strangely nonchalant in contrast, as she suggests ‘the person’ (whom she does not know) first contact ‘someone’ (whom she doesn’t know either). Her use of the phrase ‘put her’ also indicates a change in Madeleine’s status from that of a happy-go-lucky, nearly four-year-old child.

As literal actions, ‘Putting’ and ‘placing’ are things we usually do with inanimate objects. Whilst the English language includes various expressions involving the putting and placing of people, these are usually figurative (e.g., ‘I put him in his place’, ‘He was placed second in the race’, etc.). Even if someone has to be ‘put down’ (having first been picked up) they are not themselves animated at that moment.

Since Kate McCann was reading from a prepared script, there seems little justification for her not using conventional idioms when asking Madeleine’s abductor to treat her with care and respect, i.e. ‘Please leave her’ (‘somewhere safe’, ‘where she will be safe’ or, ‘in a safe place’). ‘Put her in a place of safety’ is a most unnatural turn of phrase to use in the context as publicly understood.

The verbal corruption in fact arises from Kate’s initial temptation to say ‘place her’ (somewhere safe?), which she only narrowly avoids doing. But the word ‘place’, having thrust itself forward in her mind, proves impossible to ignore, and even supercedes the word ‘safe’ in what should have been the phrase ‘safe place’, had that phrase been correctly prepared in Kate’s mind. It wasn’t. Hence we hear: ‘or pla….put her in a place of safety.’

Translated, this is Kate’s (somewhat muddled) message to the operative, that they move Madeleine to a different place (they will already be somewhere) and let their own ‘fixer’, know the new location.

Even the ‘suggestion’ (by Andy Bowes) that part of the message be delivered in Portuguese has potentially more profound an implication than its simply being a straightforward attempt to cover all the bases.

The police and their dogs were admitted into 5J by a female representative of Mark Warner, who had a key. The apartment had been unoccupied for a considerable period of time. (So who left the meat in the fridge, and who opened the fridge door?)

Should it be accepted that a corpse occupied 5J for any period of time, the corollary that Ocean Club management staff enabled it to happen at some point becomes inevitable.

Immediately we have a scenario of third-party involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. As regards the chain of command, that ‘person with Madeleine’, would have been a ‘grunt’, whose identity was unknown to the McCanns – probably a Portuguese ‘grunt’ at that. Making the focal point of her little speech in Portuguese therefore would have been Kate’s best shot at seeing to it that her message reached its ultimate recipient.

The golden key

Apartment 5J of the Ocean Club appears to assume significance beyond its merely being vacant on the occasion of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance. There are grounds for suspecting that it was used temporarily to house the infant Madeleine (although not as an abductee). For that to have happened, someone would have had to gain access, more than likely without the knowledge or consent of the apartment’s owner, who would have been elsewhere at the time. (The apartment was still unoccupied by 10 May)

The hypothesis that, come 7 May, the McCanns were keen on some re-location, lends a degree of support to the view that 5J may indeed have been a transient stop-over for their missing daughter. It has already been suggested elsewhere that such a location existed and that the McCanns had concerns about it – not so much the venue, as its proprietor – from as early as 25 May (See: That Key Bit Of Information, McCannfiles 24.1.2010).

The reports concerning the ‘searches’ conducted using the GNR’s tracker dogs, and afterwards ‘search and rescue’ animals, were not in fact written until 30 November that year, so there would not have been any publicly available ‘hard copy’ for the McCanns or anyone else to refer to. Why therefore might the McCanns, having successfully given the go-ahead for their daughter to be moved, harbour a serious on-going concern with respect to proprietors of empty properties in general, 5J the Ocean Club in particular?

Tania Cadogan concludes her piece on the subject with the statement: “If prints or DNA turned up from the McCanns, Maddie or any of the tapas group, I would be asking a lot of awkward questions.”

Given that the outcome of those searches, in terms of the behavioural pattern of the dogs, was known and clearly understood by those involved in planning and executing the task, is it not highly likely that the PJ subsequently proceeded to ask one or two ‘awkward questions’ themselves concerning apartment 5J? They were diligent enough after all to establish the ownership and movements of a particular vessel moored in Lagos Marina when it did not even go anywhere.

From what even we, the general public, can ascertain of these significant searches, it would seem almost a dereliction of duty had the PJ not identified the owner of the apartment, its last occupants (who may have been there on a holiday booking) and any interim service routines. And that would explain at a stroke why Gerry McCann appears to have been equally keen to do likewise.


Given the title of Dr Roberts' piece, I'm sure you will indulge me in a little satire? After all, what would a blog post be without a little satire*?



*For satire, read contempt. And for contempt, read Metropolitan Police.

Well..... I feel like a right dunce. I'm still none the wiser reading the article and watching the video except that:

The body was moved to 5J?

And then moved from there by third party?

The biggest question I have is if the body was in 5J after 22:00 on the 3rd May, why wasn't it discovered?

Any chance of breaking this down in simpler terms so I can understand what the answer is or what specifically I should think about?

I can understand what is being said and pointed out in the piece - what I can't work out as someone on this forum rightly, imo, pointed out recently - how would so many people have been involved and why be prepared to lie about everything.

I think it is Sallypelt who often posts about things being over thought and that things should be kept simple - as has Rocky I seem to recall.

Thing is, most theories that have been put forward seem to make sense but it always seems to come down to why would so many people in the resort at that time possibly lie and cover up.

I agreewith sallypelt ,its so easy to over complicate some of what we think we understand,in the end we don't know what end is up . joyce1938

plebgate wrote:I can understand what is being said and pointed out in the piece - what I can't work out as someone on this forum rightly, imo, pointed out recently - how would so many people have been involved and why be prepared to lie about everything.

I think it is Sallypelt who often posts about things being over thought and that things should be kept simple - as has Rocky I seem to recall.

Thing is, most theories that have been put forward seem to make sense but it always seems to come down to why would so many people in the resort at that time possibly lie and cover up.

Look at the 'professionals' that the McCanns drafted in very early on - 'experts' in areas that had nothing to do with finding children. But to do with money laundering, extradition, reputation management and so on. This is suggestive of organized crime. One of the detective firms they used were dodgy as hell.

There definitely is something fishy about apartment 5J what with the dog alerts. There are a few threads about it on this forum. But I think I am right in saying that the police did not gain entry to apartment 5J in the first instance? I am pretty sure that the were unable to gain entry to all apartments for at least a few days. 

So IF it is in any way possible that Madeleine's body had been hidden in apartment 5J at some stage and that the early sniffer dogs - although trained to alert to live scent - nevertheless detected a strong (cadaver?) scent in both 5J and 5A in the earlier searches - that does raise the intriguing possibilities.

The McCann's like to pull other people into the mess of their own creation, imo. So I would not put it past TM to make sure that Mark Warner - quite possibly unwittingly - found themselves drawn into the drama.

Sorry.

No way were they using televised appeals to pass on instructions to someone to move a body.

Way too complicated.

I'm not saying 5J isn't interesting or the appeal wasn't a bit strange (to say the least - Gerry looks like he's acting badly).

I'm sorry but I find j.rob's wild posts beyond the pale.

aquila wrote:I'm sorry but I find j.rob's wild posts beyond the pale.

I don't read anything wild in j.rob's post on this thread aquila? Dr Roberts theory could be judged to be wild but I've found him to be one of the most level headed bloggers over the years.

I doubt he suggests such a scenario without good reason(s)?

I just wish it was more succinct. That's just probably me though. All blogs on this case are very long winded IMO to be fair.

aquila wrote:I'm sorry but I find j.rob's wild posts beyond the pale.

Yeah really wild aquila. Where did the McCanns hide and transport the body do you think? 

Evidence from cadaver sniffer dogs brought in months later that a body in apartment 5A plus the Renault Scenic hire car. Detective Amaral thinks that Madeleine died in apartment 5A and her body was moved in the Scenic.

Evidence, as noted from police in the early dog searches, that there was a strong smell that agitated the dogs coming from both apartment 5A and apartment 5J. Not just on one occasion but several. And not just one dog but several. And they exhibited this behaviour no-where else in OC. No other apartments or places in O.C. 

ETA: Actually - not sure if that is true. I will check out the police reports. 

While you would expect the dogs to alert at 5A (although as far as I can tell they did not alert to the scent of an alive Madeleine in 5A - in other words did not give the classic 'alert' signal) but not 5J. 

This is hard evidence as noted by several attending police officers on several occasions and as written in their reports based on the behaviour of highly trained dogs. 

Furthermore, attending police in the early searches when the sniffer dogs (which are trained to follow the scent of a live person) became very agitated outside these two apartments made it clear that the dogs did not alert for what they were trained to do. In other words did not alert to the scent of a live person, specifically an alive Madeleine.


"Ask the dogs, Sandra?" - Gerry McCann. Yes, those pesky dogs were their undoing, right from the start it would seem.

Is it any wonder that the McCanns and their odious friends were so insistent that Jane Tanner saw "the abductor" taking away a sleeping Madeleine at 9.15pm. Anything to perpetuate the lie that Madeleine was an abducted child who was far, far away from Ocean Club and Luz by 11pm that fateful Thursday night.

Rather that a sadly deceased Madeleine who - as is so very often the case it would seem in these types of crime - may not have been so very far away from OC or Luz.

More on the sniffer dogs, for those interested.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANTONIO_SILVA.htm

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3888-apt-5j-what-q-says-about-the-gnr-search-and-rescue-dogs

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id258.html

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2046-evrd-and-csi-dogs

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-53215.html

Yes it is a chilling video. While I had my doubts from the start, I think this put me for sure in the "oh no they are involved" camp.

Jill did you mean the handmovements in the beginning of the video? I did not see any at 1.07. 

I've always thought this hand holding and ball squeezing was their warning system during interviews.


ETA: I have always been in the keep it simple camp. There is no giant conspiracy, Gerry does not have all kind of secret blackmailable contacts, Kate is only interested what other people, especially her parents, think of her.

G's left hand is on K's left shoulder, lj.

I do think that it is highly probable that they had help in moving the body. I dont think they had any choice but to allow others to remove the body.  Quite feasible for the body to have been stored in 5J at least for a short time. This would mean Gerry was not in complete control at this time. He had given the go ahead for others to remove the body. I think it feasible that out of desperation to get back in control of the body and its whereabouts they had to issue this public request.   
I agree with 'keep it simple' but if you believe that there was something going on that week that had to be hidden at all costs - then they had to get rid of the body pretty quickly. They were not natives - they needed assistance and access to a property, they needed for the body to be transported there - it is not something that they could do without drawing attention to themselves. Of course they needed assistance. How did they arrange for this assistance- through contacts. The same way as their hire car was stored at Geraghty's place. If they were on their own in P de Luz and genuine holidayees with a small group of friends - do you really think they could have got away with this?  Getting rid of a body in a foreign country - hiding it - relocating it- without drawing attention to themselves? No. They were part of something else with other associates - and through contacts they were able to enlist local help - because it was to everybody's advantage........

Ladyinred wrote:G's left hand is on K's left shoulder, lj.

I know. I was just wondering if Jill meant the squeezing in the beginning of the video, because i did not see a hand movement at 1.07 (Jill talks about that too).

Just a "before the coffee" thing of me I guess.

And compare, from the book 'madeleine'

"As I recounted how I’d found Madeleine’s bedclothes neatly folded back my voice faltered.
Every now and then Gerry would put a hand on my shoulder or give me a reassuring squeeze."
Not just once, every now and again, such as every time she started to deviate from the script . . .?

If it was not such a sad story, Gerry's face could be described as "priceless". 

What was he thinking?  "stupid cow" , "she did it" or "squeeze a tear, damn it, squeeze a bloody tear"!

HelenMeg wrote:I do think that it is highly probable that they had help in moving the body. I dont think they had any choice but to allow others to remove the body. 

This could partly account for Robert Murat's last minute trip out to Luz earlier that week. Making a booking late at night and arriving early the next morning. 

Quite feasible for the body to have been stored in 5J at least for a short time. This would mean Gerry was not in complete control at this time. He had given the go ahead for others to remove the body. I think it feasible that out of desperation to get back in control of the body and its whereabouts they had to issue this public request.   

If "the disaster" that Gerry spoke of was Madeleine's demise that week (albeit supposed to be her "abduction") then there is the very real and very difficult scenario of having to conceal a body in a holiday resort with people coming and going. Plus friends and noisy neighbours wondering what is going on. 


I agree with 'keep it simple' but if you believe that there was something going on that week that had to be hidden at all costs - then they had to get rid of the body pretty quickly.

And not get caught. Despite being in the midst of family, friends, other holiday makers, staff, cleaners and all the rest. Although reasonably quiet at that time of year, an Algarve holiday resort is not an isolated spot.

They were not natives

But bilingual Robert Murat was/is. Plus had huge connections locally and came from a well established family. Plus had property contacts. Not to mention police contacts in BOTH the UK (worked as a police translator for Norfolk police) and also in Portugal (was used as a translator by the PJ).

- they needed assistance and access to a property, they needed for the body to be transported there - it is not something that they could do without drawing attention to themselves.

Depending on when poor Madeleine met her demise that week (assuming it was that week) there was an urgent necessity to remove her body before the (faked) alarm was raised. Or at least move it to somewhere police could not or would not search (locked property/church property maybe).

Of course they needed assistance. How did they arrange for this assistance- through contacts.

Robert Murat and his mother seemed to have contacts aplenty.

The same way as their hire car was stored at Geraghty's place.

I'd be interested in finding out more about this character and his role in all this. 

http://madeleinemccann.org/blog/2009/06/11/profile-john-geraghty/

If they were on their own in P de Luz and genuine holidayees with a small group of friends - do you really think they could have got away with this? 

No. Assuming *something* happened to Madeleine early that week - even if not her demise at least some untoward event - how would they explain her disappearance? What did they say to the twins? What about Madeleine's friends including Ella? What about the nannies?

Getting rid of a body in a foreign country - hiding it - relocating it- without drawing attention to themselves? No.

If this had been a "straightforward" case of a child meeting a sudden death, whether by accident or design, it would have been solved very quickly, imo. It clearly is not straightforward due to the very high levels of protection offered.

They were part of something else with other associates - and through contacts they were able to enlist local help - because it was to everybody's advantage........

There were secrets to be kept. And there was dirt that could be dished. 

The Fund Fraud? The Missing People scam?  In any event, look how many people have got rich off the back of this. 

Golf and property connections appear to abound in this case. Rothley Park Golf Course connections? As I think several posters have suggested on the link below, it seems unlikely that Gerry would not have wanted to play golf that fateful week in Luz seeing as the area is so well known for golf and he appears to be a keen player. 

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=298958880241023&story_fbid=355885691215008

Seems a big risk to hide a body int a neighbouring holiday apartment if you are claiming she was abducted.

Wouldn't you naturally assume all apartments in the complex would be checked?

cbeagle wrote:Seems a big risk to hide a body int a neighbouring holiday apartment if you are claiming she was abducted.

Wouldn't you naturally assume all apartments in the complex would be checked?

If Madeleine's body was in 5J then she would have been moved before the abduction fiasco came into play, hence rotting meat left in opened fridge to throw dogs off.

Another reason why it's very likely Madeleine was dead before the 3rd of May, McCanns reportedly distanced themselves from the rest of the group not joining rest of the group for breakfast or lunch which is very suspect in my opinion.

From behind the couch to wardrobe in 5a and it would be highly risky having a corpse in their own apartment it's seems logical to me that they probably did put her in 5J until they figured out how they would put her in her final resting place.

This theory is a bit complicated, but so are they all in this case. Didn't the scent trails followed by all the dogs go from 5A to 5J and then down to one of the car parks (at the supermarket, I think it was)? Would these dogs have followed the scent if Madeleine was not alive and there was a few days time lapse between both legs of the trail?

We have two sightings of a child being carried on the night of the 3rd/4th that have never been cleared up by the police. Smithman is well known, but there was also the English Pizza shop owner at about 0600 hrs.
These sightings and the dog's trails suggest that Madeleine's body was in 5J and was taken to a vehicle that took her to the car park just above where the Smith sighting took place. From there she was delivered to a person in PDL for safe-keeping. She was collected from this place early in the morning and moved to another hiding place.

My theory is that she was meant to have been handed over to the courier alive as part of an organised abduction and maybe transferred to a waiting vessel, but some "disaster" happened that led to the ensuing chaos. One thing that's for certain, this case is not simple.

Hi Rob Royston,with regard to your theory"disaster"and an organised Abduction by nefarious person's,which is possible,but would implicate whoever moved Madeleine from 5a to 5j to a Reciprocal safer "Resting" place?
In 2008 Interpol and the UK Metropolitan Police Service( not Operation Grange) had investigated "Paedophile Ring Activity"and concluded they had found No paedophile Ring to have been involved with Madeleine's disappearance from apartment 5a 3 May 2007!?
On Crime Watch October 2013,DCI Andy Redwood had a "Revelation Moment" and Operation Grange,Metropolitan Police Service are following,"Paedophile Bungling Burglars"to have been involved with Madeleine McCann's disappearance?
We all know a"disaster" has happened,what we do not know was it all pre-planned as to your theory suggests,which could account for the huge amount of collusion by different Institutions and access to inter- Government operations!
If "paedophiles"are thought to have become involved,then where does this place Operation Grange and the Metropolitan Police service,with regard to a senior Detective,informing Brian Gerrish,of the UK Police not investigating,child abuse from the Care Homes system,run by the National Government,or have they been turning a"Blind eye"for years?

TheTruthWillOut wrote:Well..... I feel like a right dunce. I'm still none the wiser reading the article and watching the video except that:

The body was moved to 5J?

And then moved from there by third party?

The biggest question I have is if the body was in 5J after 22:00 on the 3rd May, why wasn't it discovered?

Any chance of breaking this down in simpler terms so I can understand what the answer is or what specifically I should think about?

Madeleine did not die on the 3rd of May.