Re: Hobs' theory: What I believe may have happened to Madeleine McCann

by Guest 01.01.16 19:56

A conspiracy theory too far for my liking.

For a start, if I was looking to be bribed by a multi-million pharmaceutical concern, I would expect something more exotic than a package deal for a few days spring break at the Ocean Club PdL on the Algarve with Mark Warners tour company. What of the mega rich supporters they attracted in the early days back in Blighty, - I really can't see the likes of Branson, Rooney, Beckham, Freud being interested in covering up for some conspiracy totally unrelated to their customary lifestyles.

Besides, if you read David Paynes rogatory interview, he goes into a great deal of detail about booking the holiday and how disgruntled he was because they missed out on some discount - not to mention the level of child care facilities provided. Straightforward policing to investigate all the background stuff , they wouldn't neglect such issues as who paid for what where and how.

For the relatively simple case of an alleged missing child to attract so much attention and subsequent subterfuge, it has to be something that could implicate persons from all walks of life - not just the medical profession. Now what could that be I wonder...

ETA: Sir Cliff 'Kitty' Richards has a villa and vineyard in close proximity to PdL - now there's a name to conjure with.

by whodunit 01.01.16 20:05

If it was a business conference why bring the children? ALL of the children, even the great nephews of Margaret 'Islington
Child Abuse Scandal' Hodge.

Also if this were a business conference, even one with a covert agenda would need a large capacity venue for meetings. Is there any evidence such a venue was booked during the holiday? Or were they all planning to cram into individual apartments? Perhaps the keynote address was given by the genetics guy in the Payne's apartment...

Can we really conceive of a group of doctors covering up a child murder in order to hide the fact that pharmaceutical companies had arranged for a freebie holiday? Most people these days would be more shocked if this drug companies DIDN'T give handouts to doctors.

We are dealing with a group of physicians--- it is not only possible but absolutely beyond question that any or all of them could have come up with plausible ways to stage an accident to cover up a possible murder, at least well enough to fool a provincial police force. So if there was some sort of covert agenda meeting going on during this holiday, why didn't the doctors stage an accident involving Madeleine? [there are many good reasons for assuming she had died, one way or another] This certainly would have been far less complicated than disposing of her poor dead body. By staging an accident the whole tragic incident would have been over in a matter of days without any sort of publicity at all, without the whole wide world becoming aware of a group holiday in PDL--publicity which could/should have blown the lid off any theoretical secret conference. Instead, the participants chose THE most sensationalist way to deal with the child's disappearance, even going so far as to court press attention. Therefore, I assume:

1. The body of the child posed a threat.

2. Publicity was desired, even essential thus ruling out an organized, covert 'business' conference that could be explained away using professional spin meisters. [msm outlets do this on behalf of corporate sponsors ALL of the time]

by Guest 01.01.16 20:16

The reasons for why not far out weigh the reasons why! When things start to go beyond the realms, always go back to the very beginning and study the group of friends - the holiday - their backgrounds - their lifestyles - their medical records - their children - their likes and dislikes etc. Then and only then open outwards to reveal the bigger picture.

GM's alleged comments (I say alleged because I'm not 100% convinced) on the transit bus could mean any number of things. Maybe the wife was taken on the trip as a change of scenery, a chance to relax and escape mental and/or anger issues - judging by her words alone, she does seem to have a rather volatile temperament.

by Guest 01.01.16 20:20

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: 1. The body of the child posed a threat.

The key to this whole charade lies in those few words I believe.

by whodunit 01.01.16 20:30

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: 1. The body of the child posed a threat.

The key to this whole charade lies in those few words I believe.

Beyond question, otherwise her body would have been found since she is unquestionably dead.

I don't care what TM, their supporters, the press, or officials say: this case is about the cover up of a dead child.

Blood, cadaver dogs, and DNA findings all point to a dead child.

Missing body, refusal to answer questions, numerous lies and contradictions all point to a cover up of the circumstances surrounding the death of the child.

The question is why? Obviously, the body holds the answer.

Was it drugs? Maybe, but surely a clever pair of doctor-parents could come up with a plausible explanation as to why she was given certain types of drugs....

by Guest 01.01.16 20:49

whodunit wrote:
Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: 1. The body of the child posed a threat.

The key to this whole charade lies in those few words I believe.

Beyond question, otherwise her body would have been found since she is unquestionably dead.

I don't care what TM, their supporters, the press, or officials say: this case is about the cover up of a dead child.

Blood, cadaver dogs, and DNA findings all point to a dead child.

Missing body, refusal to answer questions, numerous lies and contradictions all point to a cover up of the circumstances surrounding the death of the child.

The question is why? Obviously, the body holds the answer.

Was it drugs? Maybe, but surely a clever pair of doctor-parents could come up with a plausible explanation as to why she was given certain types of drugs....

Indeed! Like - honest, they were all in a zip-up bag with the scissors, I put them in the cupboard before we left by the unlocked patio door to go off out of sight for dinner. How can it be our fault if Madeleine woke up and went for a wander about the apartment and thought the drugs were Smarties and the bleach lemonade. How can we be held responsible for what she did when we weren't there?

If only we knew then what we know now - we might have decided against leaving the children alone every night.

by whodunit 01.01.16 20:53

@[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Even if there was evidence that Maddie was routinely given certain types of drugs, surely her parents who are doctors could have given the police a plausible-sounding defense even if it was complete poppycock! Surely, coming up with a lie about drugs in their child's system and consequently suffering a few slings and arrows for sounding unconvincing is preferable to hiding her body?!!

by Guest 01.01.16 20:59

whodunit wrote:@[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Even if there was evidence that Maddie was routinely given certain types of drugs, surely her parents who are doctors could have given the police a plausible-sounding defense even if it was complete poppycock! Surely, coming up with a lie about drugs in their child's system and consequently suffering a few slings and arrows for sounding unconvincing is preferable to hiding her body?!!

I quite agree! IF MBM's fate was an innocent incident so easily could the group have gathered together and come up with a reason but they didn't did they? Instead they create some cock and bull story about abduction, forced entry, unlocked doors blah blah blah blah.

More transparent than any Tapas restaurant awning or fund accountancy

by whodunit 01.01.16 21:09

Verdi wrote:
whodunit wrote:@[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Even if there was evidence that Maddie was routinely given certain types of drugs, surely her parents who are doctors could have given the police a plausible-sounding defense even if it was complete poppycock! Surely, coming up with a lie about drugs in their child's system and consequently suffering a few slings and arrows for sounding unconvincing is preferable to hiding her body?!!
I quite agree! IF MBM's fate was an innocent incident so easily could the group have gathered together and come up with a reason but they didn't did they? Instead they create some cock and bull story about abduction, forced entry, unlocked doors blah blah blah blah.

More transparent than any Tapas restaurant awning or fund accountancy

Nope! Any number of scenarios would have been better and less complicated than disposing of the body. [this is of course assuming 1. the child was never abducted and 2. the child is dead, but I think we're beyond debating the obvious]

And on top of that, they or somebody working on their behalf apparently cocked up the creche records for the week! This need to cover tracks so thoroughly is indicative of something truly sinister happening to the child. Yes, they generally did such a poor job of it their cover stories fall apart like tissue paper in rain but who cares! they've got the entire British press knowingly and willfully filling in the gaps for them, which is only further evidence of sinister motives.

by Guest 01.01.16 22:18

whodunit wrote:
Verdi wrote:
whodunit wrote:@[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Even if there was evidence that Maddie was routinely given certain types of drugs, surely her parents who are doctors could have given the police a plausible-sounding defense even if it was complete poppycock! Surely, coming up with a lie about drugs in their child's system and consequently suffering a few slings and arrows for sounding unconvincing is preferable to hiding her body?!!
I quite agree! IF MBM's fate was an innocent incident so easily could the group have gathered together and come up with a reason but they didn't did they? Instead they create some cock and bull story about abduction, forced entry, unlocked doors blah blah blah blah.

More transparent than any Tapas restaurant awning or fund accountancy

Nope! Any number of scenarios would have been better and less complicated than disposing of the body. [this is of course assuming 1. the child was never abducted and 2. the child is dead, but I think we're beyond debating the obvious]

And on top of that, they or somebody working on their behalf apparently cocked up the creche records for the week! This need to cover tracks so thoroughly is indicative of something truly sinister happening to the child. Yes, they generally did such a poor job of it their cover stories fall apart like tissue paper in rain but who cares! they've got the entire British press knowingly and willfully filling in the gaps for them, which is only further evidence of sinister motives.

One thing that's always been very clear to me - they are so confident that a body will never be found. Two alternatives here I think, either a body has been disposed of in such a way as all trace has been removed or there is not a body to be found - the former I believe most likely.

Many people can't see any particular problem with the shabby crèche records but to me it is a very important part of uncovering the truth. Mark Warners reputation is on the line here, if it's revealed that their holiday camps child care facilities are so sloppy, this would have a very detrimental effect on their holiday bookings - what normal responsible parent/guardian would want to leave their child/ren in a crèche or kiddies club where the carers are so careless as to the attendance register? The record of attendance is there for a very good reason so the least one can expect is for the staff to maintain the register accurately. Just supposing there was a genuine catastrophe !!!

by kaz 02.01.16 12:20

Exactly Verdi and don't you think the McCanns have missed an opportunity of more easy money to be made? Surely the OC is open to a lack of care claim here with the shambolic crèche records. If I was one of the other parents who had paid good money expecting decent child care and I'd faithfully entered times of coming/going and duly signed the crèche sheet as I was supposed to , I'd definitely be entertaining the idea of sueing Warners. Why haven't they?

by willowthewisp 02.01.16 12:51

kaz wrote:Exactly Verdi and don't you think the McCanns have missed an opportunity of more easy money to be made? Surely the OC is open to a lack of care claim here with the shambolic crèche records. If I was one of the other parents who had paid good money expecting decent child care and I'd faithfully entered times of coming/going and duly signed the crèche sheet as I was supposed to , I'd definitely be entertaining the idea of sueing Warners. Why haven't they?

Hi Kaz,I take your point on the,"Creche record signings",lack of care claim,but Madeleine was not in the care of any of the child minders from the Mark Warner,Ocean Club apartment complex on the 3 May 2007,was she and the parents have stated where Madeleine was Abducted from?
With regard to the owners of the complex at the time of the disappearance,now that doe's bring in some "Special friends"associated to the Conservative party and a former Arquido suspects relatives?

by kaz 02.01.16 13:18

I was thinking more about the other parents who DID sign their children in and out with authentic signatures and timings. Seems like children were allowed to be taken out of the crèche without being signed out/ in by a responsible parent and the whole scheme seemed pretty shambolic. Just suppose a child HAD wandered off, how would the nanny have known ( even after consulting the crèche sheet) whether that child had actually been collected by a parent OR NOT ? I wonder how it's all done now.

by sammi1967 02.01.16 15:13

I think the first thing that needs to be established is if Madeleine McCann ever existed in the first place!

by kaz 02.01.16 16:30

sammi1967 wrote:I think the first thing that needs to be established is if Madeleine McCann ever existed in the first place!

I'm pretty sure that 'mini me ' DID exist . One look at Kate's face as she has 'an audience ' with the Pope ( or was it the other way round ? ) speaks volumes to me .
I remember reading on here a few years ago the Dr Paul Jerome Weinberger lived ' a few doors down ' from the McCanns at one time . That can't possibly be true can it?

by whodunit 02.01.16 16:45

Verdi wrote:
whodunit wrote:
Verdi wrote:
whodunit wrote:@[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Even if there was evidence that Maddie was routinely given certain types of drugs, surely her parents who are doctors could have given the police a plausible-sounding defense even if it was complete poppycock! Surely, coming up with a lie about drugs in their child's system and consequently suffering a few slings and arrows for sounding unconvincing is preferable to hiding her body?!!
I quite agree! IF MBM's fate was an innocent incident so easily could the group have gathered together and come up with a reason but they didn't did they? Instead they create some cock and bull story about abduction, forced entry, unlocked doors blah blah blah blah.

More transparent than any Tapas restaurant awning or fund accountancy

Nope! Any number of scenarios would have been better and less complicated than disposing of the body. [this is of course assuming 1. the child was never abducted and 2. the child is dead, but I think we're beyond debating the obvious]

And on top of that, they or somebody working on their behalf apparently cocked up the creche records for the week! This need to cover tracks so thoroughly is indicative of something truly sinister happening to the child. Yes, they generally did such a poor job of it their cover stories fall apart like tissue paper in rain but who cares! they've got the entire British press knowingly and willfully filling in the gaps for them, which is only further evidence of sinister motives.
One thing that's always been very clear to me - they are so confident that a body will never be found. Two alternatives here I think, either a body has been disposed of in such a way as all trace has been removed or there is not a body to be found - the former I believe most likely.

Many people can't see any particular problem with the shabby crèche records but to me it is a very important part of uncovering the truth. Mark Warners reputation is on the line here, if it's revealed that their holiday camps child care facilities are so sloppy, this would have a very detrimental effect on their holiday bookings - what normal responsible parent/guardian would want to leave their child/ren in a crèche or kiddies club where the carers are so careless as to the attendance register? The record of attendance is there for a very good reason so the least one can expect is for the staff to maintain the register accurately. Just supposing there was a genuine catastrophe !!!

The fabricated creche records prove, to me, beyond a shadow of a doubt that something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week and it tweren't no stranger abduction. They point directly to the culpability of her parents in whatever happened.

As for the use of the creche in general what always struck me is how embarrassed these people should be to cling to the ridiculous narrative of having brought their children on holiday only to stick them in daycare all the live long day and then leave them alone and defenseless at night. Why bring them at all if they never wanted to lay eyes on the poor dears!? It's seems that no matter how embarrassing it was to 'admit' such a thing they were determined to fabricate a narrative which physically distanced themselves from the children in the eyes of the police/public.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.01.16 16:58

kaz wrote:
sammi1967 wrote:I think the first thing that needs to be established is if Madeleine McCann ever existed in the first place!
I'm pretty sure that 'mini me ' DID exist . One look at Kate's face as she has 'an audience ' with the Pope ( or was it the other way round ? ) speaks volumes to me.

I remember reading on here a few years ago the Dr Paul Jerome Weinberger lived 'a few doors down' from the McCanns at one time. That can't possibly be true can it?

I have never ever come across that one, may be true though if anyone can provide a link.

What can be said with certainty is that to some extent their research interests coincided.

On Gerry McCann's web page recently it stated this:

QUOTE

Gerry McCann’s Research Interests

“I am particularly interested in LV remodelling and the use of comprehensive cardiac MRI to better manage patients with known or suspected cardiac disease. In addition, I have run a number of trials using cardiac MRI as end point in clinical trials (eg STEMI) and in early phase II studies, assessing the efficacy of novel interventions in cardiovascular disease in partnership with various pharmaceutical companies”.

UNQUOTE

If you look at Paul Weinberger's career, you will soon see that the bit in red above gives him and Gerry coincidental interests.

Of rather more interest is that Weinberger's former company, Enigma, was set up essentially as an 'arm's length', government-backed private company, whose office was eventually located inside the highly secret Ministry of Defence establishment at Porton Down in Wiltshire, not far from Salisbury. It is famous, or perhaps notorious, for conducting research into biological, chemical and nuclear warfare. The murdered Dr David Kelly was associated with it for many years.

Weinberger did live close to another Ocean Club guest, Dr Julian Totman and his wife, both of whom were General Practitioners in Salisbury. But still more relevantly, Dr Totman had a second surgery actually inside Porton Down.

Gerry McCann vehemently denied knowing either of them before May 2007, but an article in the Daily Mail dated 4 March 2010 referring to his wife, art expert Mrs Jeni Weinberger, is of interest - extract below:

“…on returning from Portugal in May 2007, she had informed her local police force - Wiltshire - about a possible ‘sighting’ of an abductor. She went on to claim that Wilshire Police contacted Leicestershire police who failed to follow up her lead. It was only when she received an emotional phone call from Maddie’s mum Kate, nearly two years later that a photofit based on her description was put together”.

Why was Jeni Weinberger so keen to help the McCanns?

Could she really have drawn up a 'photo-fit' two years later of a cleaner she'd seen back in 2007?

Did anyone seriously think that, two years later, a photo-fit of this cleaner could be a possible breakthough in the Madeleine McCann investigation?

Oh, wait a moment...'nearly two years after Madeleine was reported missing'...

...say March or April 2009, then...

...a few weeks before the controversial 'Mockumentary' shown on 7 May 2007...

...maybe they didn't have enough abductor suspects to fill the programme?

by sammi1967 02.01.16 17:06

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I personally wouldn't make a judgement on any photograph that appears in the press concerning this case as they all appear to have been very selectively picked. And I don't see how any photo of Kate could be taken as proof of M's existence.

by Guest 02.01.16 22:15

sammi1967 wrote:I think the first thing that needs to be established is if Madeleine McCann ever existed in the first place!

I don't think there can be any doubt that MBM existed, nor that she was with her parents and siblings on that trip to the Ocean Club PdL.

by Guest 02.01.16 22:30

willowthewisp wrote:
kaz wrote:Exactly Verdi and don't you think the McCanns have missed an opportunity of more easy money to be made? Surely the OC is open to a lack of care claim here with the shambolic crèche records. If I was one of the other parents who had paid good money expecting decent child care and I'd faithfully entered times of coming/going and duly signed the crèche sheet as I was supposed to , I'd definitely be entertaining the idea of sueing Warners. Why haven't they?
Hi Kaz,I take your point on the,"Creche record signings",lack of care claim,but Madeleine was not in the care of any of the child minders from the Mark Warner,Ocean Club apartment complex on the 3 May 2007,was she and the parents have stated where Madeleine was Abducted from?
With regard to the owners of the complex at the time of the disappearance,now that doe's bring in some "Special friends"associated to the Conservative party and a former Arquido suspects relatives?

The childcare staff were interviewed by the PJ, their witness statements form part of the PJ investigation files along with the crèche record of attendance - clearly it was of importance to the investigation. Basic policing to ascertain the movements of the McCann family during the week and that of their group of friends. One particular afternoon Madeleine was signed in for only fifteen minutes - why was that? Was it an erroneous entry or was Madeleine ill or did they take her away for a particular reason - if so, what reason? There any number of reasons why the crèche records are of importance.

Very unprofessional in my opinion.

by Rogue-a-Tory 03.01.16 0:20

Tony Bennett wrote:
kaz wrote:Most likely it all has nothing to do with swinging or paedophilia. Since there were so many doctors involved I have come to believe the ‘holiday’ was a freebie organised by a leading pharmaceutical company. If this became public knowledge it would reveal exactly what these drug companies are willing to do to get their products available on the NHS...all highly illegal of course. We all know what immense financial power these companies exert over the government as well.

The fact that the apartment was cleaned so thoroughly suggests a DNA disclosure problem and I keep coming back to the question, ‘ What was it about Madeleine’s DNA that needed to remain secret?’ Incidentally Leicester University is home to leading genetic research and of course where Alec Jeffreys came up with DNA fingerprinting.

The bottom line for me is an accidental death that could have caused a government downfall if the public had a whiff of just what was and is still being carried out by these huge pharmaceutical conglomerates. We’re talking billions of pounds of potential losses here and we all know how money talks. Just my New Year's Eve musings.
The presence in Praia da Luz of Dr Paul Jerome Weinberger the very same week as the McCanns tends to support your musings.

He was in 2007 a top flyer in Enigma Diagnostics, a Government-sponsored company now based in the top secret Ministry of Defence establishment at Porton Down, Wiltshire, where research into biological and germ warfare, chemical warfare, radiological and nuclear warfare etc. continues. And he dined every night at the Ocean club with his close professional friend Dr Julian Totman, who conveniently lives just down the road from Porton Down in Salisbury, Wiltshire. Weinberger now (a) owns and runs Diasolve, (b) is on the powerful National Institute of Clinical Excellence (N.I.C.E.) which approves, or rejects, which drugs are to be paid for by the N.H.S., and (c) is past Chairman, now Committee member, of BIVDA (British In Vitro Diagnostics Association). In short, he is a very influential and powerful bloke in these circles.

His links to genetic research, and eugenics, cloning and assorted 'bioengineering' techniques are strong - certainly providing a link with the McCanns' IVF treatment.

And yes, the absence of Madeleine's DNA in Praia da Luz remains one of the hugest 'stand-out' mysteries - in this case of mysteries upon mysteries.

Drug company/NHS fraud coverup would explain why there has appeared cross-party support to aid the Mcs. I believe there are all sorts of underhand dealings in this arena. However, I don't believe that the medics in Tapas 9 would be of any great interest to the pharmaceutical giants. In 2007 all of them would be far too junior to have influenced any significant purchasing decisions in the NHS and none would have wielded sufficient budgetary control or responsibility to have interested such companies in the slightest. NICE idea big grin

but a non-starter.

by kaz 03.01.16 12:24

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

In 2007 all of them would be far too junior to have influenced any significant purchasing decisions in the NHS and none would have wielded sufficient budgetary control or responsibility to have interested such companies in the slightest. NICE idea but a non-starter.

JUNIOR DOCTORS ( as in YOUNG, career hungry, vain and financially insecure ) could just be the sort of thing pharmaceutical companies WOULD be interested in. Maybe it was just a general holiday freebie at a dead ordinary holiday complex as a 'thank you' to a group of dead ordinary doctors . Sort of thing frowned upon by the government but not yet illegal. However I do think that there is much more to it than this. I'm being swayed by the medical connection because I don't believe that Gerry McCann would be publicly blaming 'paedophiles' for Madeleine's disappearance if there WAS any connection to child abuse during that ' holiday.' That would be pretty stupid and GMC doesn't strike me as a stupid man. Whatever it was all about it had to be pretty bad if aspersions of paedophilia were preferable to the truth. He must have realised by mentioning the unmentionable unpalatable rumours would abound.
I would be interested in knowing if any of the other doctors present had children by IVF . All tentative opinion of course.

by Sophiebubbles 03.01.16 12:51

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I appreciate that meddling in scientific advancements i.e. cloning or dervatives thereof are pretty harrowing to the conscientious mind. I also accept there are many things going on in this world which would be termed pretty damming, but I struggle to think there is anything more awful or distateful to mankind in general than paedophilia....only in my opinion.

by sammi1967 03.01.16 13:16

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Without the presence of her DNA at the resort there will always be room for doubt as to whether she was there or not that week.

by Joannep43 03.01.16 14:11

There is plenty of information on the web regarding control of budgets for Doctors. Family doctors have had budget control from around 2010. Control of budgets by hospital Doctors was rolled out by some trusts pre 2009. Not sure what is within the range of the budgets, whether staffing, equipment etc.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.01.16 14:25

sammi1967 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Without the presence of her DNA at the resort there will always be room for doubt as to whether she was there or not that week.

With due respect @ sammi1967, no.

These three photos of Madeleine, taken on Saturday 28 April 2007 at the Ocean Club, are ample proof she was there, and there are other proofs she was there:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Not another second should be wasted speculating on whether Madeleine was in Praia da Luz or not that week - she clearly was.

By contrast, no stone should be left unturned to try to establish why:

(A) there was no DNA of her to be found on Thursday 3 May, despite her apparently having slept in her bed for two hours that evening, and

(B) why - apart from the three photos we have above, we only have the highly controversial 'Last Photo' and 'Tennis Balls Photo' for the rest of the week.

by kaz 03.01.16 15:49

Sophiebubbles wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] I appreciate that meddling in scientific advancements i.e. cloning or dervatives thereof are pretty harrowing to the conscientious mind. I also accept there are many things going on in this world which would be termed pretty damming, but I struggle to think there is anything more awful or distateful to mankind in general than pedeophillia....... only in my opinion.

Couldn't agree with you more but that was my point: How truly awful must the truth be if the McCanns et al are willing to accept all the aspersions and unspoken thoughts regarding child abuse rather than TELL THE TRUTH AND nothing but the truth?

by **Hobs** 03.01.16 17:22

The big question is:

Why would they make an accidental death (if that is what it was) look like a homicide?

by sammi1967 03.01.16 17:51

@Tony Bennett

Fair comment. If those photos were definately taken on that date then yes you're absolutely right in it being a waste of time speculating on it.

by whodunit 03.01.16 17:54

sammi1967 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Without the presence of her DNA at the resort there will always be room for doubt as to whether she was there or not that week.

The lack of DNA is due to the forensic cleaning that was evident to police [and for which there was simply no time to accomplish on the night of May 3.] a cleaning which is prima facie evidence of guilty knowledge.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] --"Why would they make an accidental death (if that is what it was) look like a homicide?"

The cover-up itself is indicative of a homicide. It could have been an accident but if it was it occurred during the commission of a worse crime for which the McCanns were desperate to avoid exposure.

Just take a look at the wording in count 7 of the once-secret indictment of the parents of JonBenet Ramsey, [another case of clear political assistance in the cover up] whose body showed clear signs of sexual assault:

the Ramsey's "unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously render assistance to a person, with intent to hinder, delay and prevent the discovery, detention, apprehension, prosecution, conviction and punishment of such person for the commission of a crime, knowing the person being assisted has committed and was suspected of the crime of murder in the first degree and child abuse resulting in death."

In other words, the grand jurors believed the parents covered up the true circumstances of the death of their child in order to hide a worse crime, one that they knowingly allowed to occur according to count 4:

the Ramseys "did unlawfully, knowingly, recklessly and feloniously permit a child to be unreasonably placed in a situation which posed a threat of injury to the child's life or health, which resulted in the death of JonBenét Ramsey, a child under the age of sixteen."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It was worth it to the Ramseys suffer the slings and arrows of suspicion as long as the true nature of their participation in the events surrounding their little girl's death was kept secret.